An Appraisal of Richard Spencer's Rise and Fall
The survey begins with Richard Spencer for his key role in the newly emergent Right, which ran parallel with MAGA, each reflecting the limitations and betrayals of the other. Spencer came to prominence as the first noteworthy right-wing figure of the internet age that profoundly altered the nature of political discourse. While other and older right-wing and/or pro-white figures had utilized the internet, especially given their absence in the official or ‘mainstream’ discourse, Spencer came of age just when the internet was revolutionizing all manners of business, information, and communication.
Therefore, unlike his precedents whose formative years were either restricted to ‘disreputable’ subcultures or focused on diluting one’s views to gain access to respectable spheres of debate(such as the National Review), Spencer and his fellow pioneers got their start with the world-wide-web as the new frontier in information space. An added benefit was that Spencer entered the fray when the internet was undergoing a new revolution with social platforms/networks and the much improved Youtube allowing for faster uploads, superior video quality, and even live-streaming.
In the first phase of the internet, anyone could put up a website(and soon something called a ‘blog’), and it might be found through search engines, discussions on forums, mentions in the mainstream media, or word-of-mouth. Myspace innovated cyber-social interaction but looked amateurish, inelegant, and clunky. It was Facebook and Twitter that streamlined the ‘social’ experience, rendering it smooth and easy for millions, then billions, of people all over the world to ‘friend’ and ‘tweet’ one another.
In those ‘wild west’ days, the platforms operated virtually on the principles of Free Speech. Consider that even David Duke was once a minor star on Youtube, his videos gaining millions of viewers worldwide. And Brother Nathanael and others like him soon followed. Back then, Mark Zuckerberg even made a case for allowing Holocaust Denial on Facebook as a matter of Free Speech.
Open discussions of controversial topics were so common in those days that most of us were lulled into believing that free speech was one of the cornerstones of the internet, i.e. neither Big Tech corporations nor the government would dare interfere with the revolutionary and democratizing freedoms of the Internet Age. After all, the West defined itself as a liberal democracy where free speech was sacrosanct(as opposed to in places like China or Iran).
Also, many assumed that most young Big Tech entrepreneurs and programmers were sufficiently libertarian in their outlooks to resist the temptations or pressures for censorship. Jack Dorsey of Twitter presented himself as a libertarian. Google began with the slogan, “Don’t Be Evil”, presumed to imply the company’s commitment to neutrality and fairness.
And the full spectrum representation of ideological views on Youtube, from the far right to the far left, pulsed with libertarian ethos, as if the internet couldn’t be anything but free-and-fair. Apparently, it was too vast, complex, decentralized, and radically democratic for any set of players to rig it in favor of their own monopolistic agendas. Even though a handful of Big Tech players were increasingly attracting and manipulating the vast bulk of internet traffic, the ease and universality of access made it feel as though everyone had a stake in the experience, i.e. though private companies, they seemed to function like public squares and domains.
Indeed, corporations like Google and Facebook became mega-monopolies precisely because they drew in everyone regardless of their political views and affiliations. If those enterprises had been initiated with the kinds of policies implemented in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s victory in 2016, many people would have rejected them in favor of other options.
If Facebook had come on the scene with the forthright statement that it would favor the Democrats and hamstring American Conservatives, shield the ‘Woke’ while suppressing the Right, and/or boost the likes of Ben Shapiro(and other Zionist-centric ‘conservatives’) while demoting(or ‘canceling’) the anti-Zionist Right, half the country would have thought twice about signing on. Instead, Facebook was sold as an open forum where all were welcome to ‘friend’ others and share ideas.
Then, it’s no wonder that Spencer, among others, jumped at the opportunity of forming a new kind of right-wing culture that was younger, fresher, bolder, and more free-spirited, unburdened by associations with the spineless Neocon-captured Right(as mainstay of Conservatism Inc.), thick-skulled Neo-Nazi Right(as the favored caricature of Jewish Media Power), and geriatric Paleo-Conservative Right. While Spencer shared ideological roots and had cultivated ties with key Paleo-Conservative figures, he understood that figures like Patrick Buchanan and Paul Gottfried had become ghostly figures of a bygone era. The Paleo-Cons earned a certain respect in dissident circles for their stalwart opposition to the Neo-Conning of the GOP and American Conservatism, but they were ideologically inadequate in gauging new challenges, overly relying on old formulations generated in the battles of the Sixties(and earlier).
It’s rather telling that many boomer(or older) dissident and/or controversial figures on the Right either ignored the possibilities of social networking or treated it as a curiosity than a game-changer. Many ignored Twitter or joined considerably later. In a way, this was to their credit as they’d honed their skills in ‘monastically’ thinking things through and presenting well-rounded arguments, in the manner of a newspaper columnist or magazine essayist. Given their formative influences, they tended to disdain the ‘arguments’ on social networks as simpleminded, gossipy, cartoonish, ad hominem, catty(or snarky), and of course trollish, especially among the anonymous accounts popping up everywhere.
Even the ones who engaged on social platforms used them in the most rudimentary ways, posting links to articles on their websites. The networks were seen as conveyors of material made-and-based elsewhere(their own websites) than as the main forum where ideas are tossed-and-turned, whipped into shape. Their thought processes were more along the railway model where the product is made and packaged in one place before being shipped to other destinations. Thus, one’s own website was like a factory or railroad station.
However, social networking turned the information highway itself into a constant hubbub of opinions, rumors, and likes/dislikes, especially true of Twitter with its ease of contact and exchange of views(as one didn’t have to ‘friend’ anyone or join a group or fan site).
The game-changing novelty certainly didn’t do much for depth or gravitas in political analysis or ideological theorizing, but then, given most political figures are bogus and most political views trite, the rapidity of communication did wonders for calling BS on the official dogma and mainstream narratives, e.g. the bullshitters would be mercilessly ‘ratioed’. Besides, why go to any length to explain something when a mere ‘meme’ could bring down the house-of-cards on what would come to be known as the ‘fake news’ media? Some things deserve to be thought about; others merely exposed and disposed.
After all, the kid in “The Emperor’s New Clothes” needn’t write an entire essay, let alone a book, to point out that the emperor is naked. For all the intellectual credentials and elite pedigrees, the Liberals and Progressives had one fatal disadvantage vis-a-vis the dissident right. They might possess higher average I.Q.s and have graduated from the fanciest schools, but their obsession with status and privilege, along with their trust in authority, had made them the purveyors of official dogma and narratives; in other words, full of bullshit easily ridiculed by any honest observer, even a high-schooler in his basement. The sheer amount of irreverence on the social platforms rendered such types hapless and flat-footed against the fleet-footed ‘memers’ with wings on their shoes.
If the older elements of the dissident right sought to engage the Liberal Mainstream Media in serious discussion in the spirit of mutual respect, usually hopeless as they were reviled as incorrigible ‘racists’ and ‘white supremacists’ by the latter, the younger dissidents on social platforms harbored few illusions about hypocritical Liberals and Progressives as honest thinkers. It was better to pee on them than plea with them. The likes of Charles Murray, straddling between dissident right and acceptable conservatism, had long pleaded to be heard and been genuinely hurt when misrepresented and dismissed by the guardians of mainstream discourse, but the new spirit on the right was immune to such inferiority complexes.
As such, ‘memes’ began to supersede conventional polemics. Political cartoonists used to operate at the margins of political debate, lending color and humor. In the world of social networking, those with political-cartoon-mindsets were primed for the ‘art’ of ‘memery’ with the power to define or upend the debates.
Spencer grasped the Zeitgeist but, as an added bonus, was well-versed in intellectual discourse. He could roll with the trolls(such as Andrew Anglin and the Daily Shoah crowd) but also produce thoughtful essays on political/cultural trends. He could hang with the restless youth of the ‘punk’ right taking shape on the net but also converse with ideological elders of an academic disposition.
Looking back, it’s impossible to underestimate the significance of social media in transforming the alternative or dissident ideological spheres of both the left and the right, but especially on the right because the establishment media and academic institutions had long tolerated the full spectrum of leftism while only allowing space for the ‘respectable’ right. Thus, even as the far left, hard left, and dissident left were consigned mostly to the periphery, they were nevertheless deemed acceptable in the forum of ideas and expression. In some ways, the far left enjoyed greater leeway in intellectual and cultural circles than the moderate right did. A classical Marxist was more likely to be regarded positively by his or her peers in academia than the most spineless cuckservative who was, at best, tolerated as a token(if only to maintain the myth of diversity-of-thought).
Of course, it was far worse for anyone right of cuckservatism. While the far right, hard right, and dissident right technically had free speech protections(though even this was ‘intellectually’ chipped away by Political Correctness that floated the idea of banning ‘hate speech’), anyone mouthing their ideas were summarily purged from the media and academia. Such individuals were not hired, denied promotion and/or tenure. If miraculously somehow a member of the faculty, he or she was usually shunned by colleagues and peers.
Also, the ‘progressive’ bureaucratic-ideological complex constructed and reinforced a culture of hysteria and intimidation whereby the very presence of far right, hard right, or dissident right folks became anathema. Students indoctrinated to be ideological crusaders or inquisitors might verbally and even physically attack those on the Right, and such tactics often had the tacit approval of the authorities or were defended as ‘free expression’(even though it mostly consisted of howling and fist-shaking to drown out the speakers). Somewhere along the line, colleges(especially in the Social Sciences, Humanities, and Political Science) went from institutions committed to cultivating rational analysis, critical thinking, intellectual originality, and cultural appreciation to the command central of moral panic and ideological crusades to ‘save the world’ by stamping out ‘evil’, a kind of new theocracy. Initially, the Right was gradually purged as ‘white supremacist racists’, ‘patriarchal sexists’, ‘Anti-Semites’, and/or ‘heteronormative homophobes’, and only a handful of the most ‘moderate’ conservatives were allotted positions as tokens; the only truly right-wing types allowed in the institutions were the Neocons, Jewish or Cuck-Goyim, who had the protection of the administrators who were joined at the hip with Zionist donors.
Liberals, who should have known better, either believed the rightness of the ‘progressive’ cause trumped liberal principles of free discourse & tolerance OR lacked the spine to stand up to the censorious mob(especially when scarily loud blacks were involved). Over time, the principle of free speech came to be seen less as a universal ideal of liberty and conscience but a defensive bulwark against achieving total victory for those on the ‘right side of history’, i.e. “instead of letting us finish off the ‘nazis’, ‘racists’, ‘white supremacists’, ‘anti-Semites’, ‘homophobes’, ‘sexists’, and ‘xenophobes’ once and for all, the stupid, weak, or duplicitous liberals provide haven for the forces of evil on grounds of ‘free speech’ that shelters intolerable ‘hate speech’.”
But this wasn’t a victory for the hard left either as the young ones(weaned on pop culture from cradle) tended to be most worked up about the latest fads and fashions in the politics of outrage(thus easily manipulable by the capitalist class with its hold over Hollywood and Music Industry) than working toward any deep and complex understanding of history and society, which was at least true of the Marxists.
As student groups instigated one commotion after commotion, the authorities had plausible deniability. Gee, what could they do when the students are so idealistic and impassioned? The general consensus was that the Right had to be pushed out and kept out. The mantra was, “there is no place for such…”
In this climate, one could be a Stalinist or Maoist and still work in academia, but forget about it if one believed fascism was preferable to communism or that Hitler wasn’t all bad. Barack Obama could have ties with someone like Bill Ayers and run for president, but imagine a political aspirant with ties to Tom Metzger or even David Duke. No way.
The only kind of leftist who ended up in hot water tended to be a critic of Israel and Zionism. Norman Finkelstein couldn’t even get tenure at a second-tier college because of pressures from Jewish Power, and there have been many such examples. While the left often blacklisted the right, Jewish Power blacklisted both the left and the right, especially over foreign policy issues involving Israel(and discussion of Jewish influence).
Then, it’s no wonder that the far right, hard right, dissident right, alternative right, maverick right, subculture right, and etc. appreciated the internet in ways that the left did not and didn’t need to(as they had niches all along the media and academic landscape). One could idolize Che Guevara in the media and academia. Or the Black Panthers. Or make excuses for the Bolsheviks. Or pretend Mao was mostly for the good of China. But forget it if you preferred David Duke or even Patrick Buchanan, slowly but surely pushed out of the Conservative Movement by both the Republican Party and Conservative Media(though John McLaughlin was gracious enough to keep him around).
The virtual absence of the hard right, far right, and dissident right in the discourse rendered American Conservatism generic and bland, limp and anemic. While extreme, contrarian, maverick, rogue, or crazy ideas can muck things up, they also add color, energy, and inspiration to any movement. Too much spice will ruin the recipe, but no spice at all makes for dull eating. Thus, ‘extreme’ ideas, even if ultimately rejected, present challenges and creative frictions.
Through most of the second half of the 20th century, the liberal-left side of the political scene was more fertile, inspired, and imaginative because of the creative dialectic between the left and the liberal. Even as the Liberal Center usually eschewed the demands of the left, there were sparks in the feud, and on occasion, the liberals adopted and modified leftist ideas and demands.
In contrast, as the far right, hard right, and dissident right were increasingly deemed taboo and verboten, the American Right became stultified as a center-right movement. While liberals could draw water(often muddy but sometimes nourishing) from the leftist well, the conservatives couldn’t do likewise from the rightist well. In their ideological thirst, the center-right drank from the liberal well(for new ideas), and American Conservatism turned into a project of desperately convincing the Liberals(and Jews and blacks) that it wasn’t ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘anti-Semitic’, ‘xenophobic’, and then finally ‘homophobic’. It became ideologically defensive, always pleading its redemptive innocence on the basis of Liberal(or even Leftist) standards. And then, once American Liberalism-Leftism caved to degeneracy and idolatry, mostly centered on homos and blacks, American Conservatism once again followed suit, resulting in moments like Charlie Kirk of TPUSA posing with Lady MAGA the tranny.
At any rate, whereas the arteries between Leftism and Liberalism remained flowing, thereby infusing mainstream Liberalism with vital leftist energies(even if the Democratic Party and mainstream media ultimately watered them down or repurposed them for other ends), the arteries between Conservatism and Rightism(of the red-blooded kind) had been blocked or severed(not least with the compliance of wussies like Bill Buckley who stabbed Joseph Sobran and Patrick Buchanan in the back to appease the Neocons), resulting in a political arteriosclerosis preventing ideological regeneration. Without blood infusions from the Right, American Conservatism grew weaker and wussier, downright impotent. (No wonder Bob Dole became a spokesman for Viagra. If you can’t win an election, at least get an erection.)
The shift on the Right could be traced back to the time of Barry Goldwater. Granted, some will argue that American Conservatism experienced a tremendous renewal, with the Republicans winning five of the six presidential races between 1968 to 1992(and even among the Democrats, the winners were the more moderate LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton from the South), but these victories had less to do with Conservative capture of the American Political Imagination than Democratic excesses, especially in relation to black crime, that turned off voters. Likewise, Trump returned to the presidency in 2024 mainly because of the mass fatigue with Democratic agendas. If a woman-of-desire acts like a total crazy bitch, a man might go with plain-faced and dumpy Midge, not out of any attraction but for reliability-sake. GOP victories were those of Midge.
It’s worth noting the Jewish angle in the legitimacy of the left as participants in the debate. The Left-Liberal interaction may have owed more to Jewish Power than ideological affinity. Even non- and anti-communist Jews were offended by the ‘Red Scare’ in which many leftists Jews came under suspicion, i.e. tribal loyalty trumped ideological affinity.
If American Conservatism felt compelled to distance itself from the Right(with its ‘anti-semitic’ and ‘racist’ tendencies), American Liberalism, increasingly under Jewish control and leadership, canonized the leftist and/or communist ‘victims’ of the ‘Red Scare’. Joe McCarthy was made out to be one of the biggest monsters in American History, a greater threat to American Constitutional principles than even the Rosenbergs and their ilk who slipped atomic bomb secrets to mass killer Stalin. (Imagine if German-Americans had sent Hitler nuclear secrets and then were prosecuted and executed in a climate of left-leaning demagoguery. The Anti-Nazis would have been lionized most likely even if they’d violated the Constitution, just like the liberal Supreme Court judges who gave the greenlight to the ‘internment’ of Japanese-Americans.)
In time, even American Conservatism came to regard Joe McCarthy as an embarrassment and only tepidly defended the ‘Red Scare’ while Jewish Liberals went all in on lionizing the ‘victims’ of ‘red-baiting’ as among the greatest heroes of American History and Arts & Letters. (Of course, the same kind of Jews later pushed the Russia Hysteria about Evil Putler that went far beyond anything McCarthy did, but Jews got the power, the ultimate arbiter of what’s what.)
If most of the leftists who were hounded or persecuted during the Red Scare hadn’t been Jews(or had been virulently hostile to Zionism), perhaps the Left-Liberal connection would have been flimsier, even fallen apart. But given the prominence of Jews on the American Left, American Liberalism(in which Jews soon eclipsed the Anglo-Americans) shielded and maintained the connection.
Jewish Liberals felt closer to Jewish Leftists than to Goy Liberals, many of whom were resolutely anti-leftist and anti-communist(and would even switch over to the GOP). Even Jewish Conservatives, on some level, felt closer to Jewish Leftists than to Goy Conservatives(who were always suspected of crypto-antisemitism). They were all Jews, after all. If Jewish Conservatives regarded Jewish Leftists as prodigal Jews, or Jews-gone-wrong but still members of the tribal family, many Jewish Liberals secretly admired Jewish Leftists as their better half on grounds that, whereas the former opted for pragmatism and compromise, the latter remained true to the revolutionary spirit. But then, Jewish Liberals also admired right-wing Jews for a similar reason, one of spirit if not ideology; whereas Jewish Liberals chose assimilation to gain personal success and acceptance from the WASPs, the right-wing ones kept true to their tribal spirit.
At any rate, the combined power of Jewry across the political spectrum, left, liberal, and conservative(soon to merge with Neoconservatism), waged total war on the Real Right that refused to abandon pro-white politics, call attention to racial differences(as explanation for black behavior especially), and call out the often nefarious influence of Jewry worldwide. Jewish Neocons usually expended more energy against the likes of Patrick Buchanan than against the Left, and even the attacks on the Left were often over its criticism of Israel.
Pre-internet, hardly any legitimacy was conferred on the right that was right of, say, the National Review. The Jewish-run media usually featured such right as the ‘far right’, mostly composed of skinheads, Neo-Nazis, KKK, or ‘white supremacists’, usually featured on Talk Shows(like Jerry Springer) to make total clowns of themselves. (One bunch of hardcore conservatives who might be deemed as ‘far right’ was given something of a pass because its credo was religion-based than race-based, somewhat odd given Jewish hostility to Christian Fundamentalism, but the Christian Taliban happened to be ultra-Zionist, thereby useful in the Holy Jewhad against Arabs and Muslims.)
Naturally, the ‘respectable’ right(whose fragile respectability hinged on the whims of Jewish controllers of media and academia) usually avoided contact with the ‘disreputable’ right-wing elements, especially in fear of guilt-by-association.
Generally, the ‘radical’ elements of the left were bestowed legitimacy as agents of intellectualism, creativity, humanitarianism, and progress, i.e. even if they were misguided and extreme at times, they were either well-intentioned or ahead of their times. In contrast, the far right was portrayed in political discourse and popular imagination(Hollywood and TV) as a bunch of KKK-tards or Neo-Nazi losers compensating for their low IQs and dead-end jobs with Heil Hitler salutes.
Jews wanted it this way, the formula that saw value in those left to the Liberals but no value in those right of the conservatives. If Liberals sometimes deferred to the radical left as people more impassioned and committed to social progress, Conservatives didn’t want anything to do with the radical right that was invariably caricatured in the media as Neo-Nazis, KKK, or Holocaust Deniers.
The internet, while amply confirming the actual existence of the Idiot Right(the kind showcased on Jerry Springer and Geraldo Rivera’s shows), also shed light on a far wider range of rightist ideas, thereby undermining the false dichotomy of ‘respectable conservatives’ vs ‘far-right Nazis’. Right-leaning types who’d only known Conservatism Inc. talking points were introduced to new perspectives. The same was true for those who’d only known cartoonish Neo-Nazi, KKK, or Skinhead talking points. Thus, certain Conservatives were ‘radicalized’, while certain far-right types began to moderate with a deeper understanding of history and ideas. (David Duke, upon rejecting KKK-style politics and in growing empathy with wider humanity also at the mercy of Jewish tyranny and exploitation, was among the pioneers of a different kind of Right.)
Richard Spencer was well-poised to be a key figure in this transformation. As he grew up in the internet age, he intuited more than his ideological elders the advantages of the new technology. He was also schooled in the history of political philosophy, broadly cognizant of the wide spectrum of right-wing ideas(and left-wing ones as well), thereby conversant with various factions of the right and the various wings of the GOP establishment. He could serve as a conduit between the institutions and dissident individuals, between the old and the young, between the radical and the mainstream. It also helped that his formative years were pre-internet(and especially pre-social-media), with greater emphasis on concentration and comprehension, valuable assets given the attention-deficit flippancy of the generations beginning with the millennials whose slot-machine consciousness was almost always tuned into some electronic device flashing with endless streams of images, sounds, and texts.
As an illustration of the new dynamics, it’s worth recounting how some of us became aware of Richard Spencer. Many used Facebook to connect with real friends, but many others used the platform to ‘friend’ those with similar outlooks on politics and/or similar tastes in culture. Thus, naturally and organically, a dissident right sphere began to coalesce on Facebook. It happened independently, bypassing the traditional controls of the gatekeepers. Pre-internet, those who’d defined American Conservatism were the appointed mavens at the National Review, Heritage Foundation, and various Neocon journals & organizations. There was Talk Radio but, for all the sturm und drang, populist passions were carefully corralled within the Zionist barb-wire fence. All said and done, the views on Talk Radio were hardly less curated than those in a staid ‘conservative’ journal.
With the advent of the internet, the various Conservative publications and organizations, along with some successful mainstream-approved conservative bloggers, had their own websites(and seemed to be gaining widening bases of support), but the game changer was that even ‘disreputable’ figures could have their own sites and attract internet traffic. Still, these innovations hardly facilitated person-to-person(or person-to-people) communication except in the commentary section(that was, as often as not, moderated). The real change in the political culture followed the rise of social networks/platforms.
In a way, the crippling disadvantage of the Right had come with a silver lining. While mainstream Conservatism suffered from its total and abject rejection of rightism(as too ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘anti-semitic’, and then, even ‘homophobic’), the actual right somewhat benefited from the rejection, demonstrable in the comparative threat levels of the right and the left to the Establishment. In the film CITIZEN KANE, a conversation between Kane’s associates goes as follows:
Jedediah Leland: These men who were with the Chronicle. Weren’t they just as devoted to the Chronicle politics as they are now to our policies?
Mr. Bernstein: Sure, they’re just like anybody else. They got work to do, they do it! Only they happen to be the best men in the business!
Leland: Do we stand for the same things the Chronicle stands for, Bernstein?
Bernstein: Certainly not. Listen, Mr. Kane, he’ll have them changed to his kind of newspapermen in a week!
Leland: There’s always a chance, of course, that they’ll change Mr. Kane, without his knowing it.
Even as the Left remained vibrant via nourishment from mainstream Liberalism — consider how the Liberal Establishment allowed former Weather Underground types like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn to gain positions in academia and NGO’s, something unthinkable for the likes of David Duke, and even provided a plush job for the terrorist-bomber Susan Rosenberg who was pardoned by Bill Clinton — , the danger was that the Left would be compromised and corrupted by the so-called Liberal Establishment. With all the funding and connections, the Left came to rely on the Establishment and was eventually co-opted, abandoning concerns for the working class in favor of endless polemics and tirades in favor of decadent GloboHomo. During Obama’s presidency, the very leftist organizations that had denounced Bush II’s wars were silent about the horrors unleashed in Libya, Ukraine, and Syria. They also turned a blind eye to Wall Street that poured billions to the Democrats.
Many on the Left effectively became operatives of the Deep State and the US empire, disingenuously convincing themselves that the New Imperialism was good because it spread ‘progressive’ agendas of GloboHomo, Negrolatry, and ‘anti-autocratic’ foreign policies targeted at states like Russia, China, and Iran.
Something similar might have happened to the Right had it maintained ties with Conservatism Inc., but the bond had been broken, mainly in fear of offending Jews whose power kept growing exponentially.
Therefore, the Right maintained a more independent mind and bolder spirit. What was there to lose when Conservatism Inc. wanted nothing to do with it and offered no rewards?
Indeed, in the coming ideological war, this was the advantage that the Right had over the Left. The Left, compromised by the Establishment, often served as an addendum of the Deep State, whereas the Right was often strident in calling out the whole corrupt system.
Broadly speaking, the American ideological landscape could be divided into two camps. Those from the Far Left to Conservatism Inc. and those on the Real Right. Even though Conservatives were ostensibly right-leaning, their core assumptions were closer to those of the left. The main difference between the left and the Conservatives was in how they framed the agenda of equality. The left argued that certain groups, having been discriminated against in the past or being stifled by ‘systemic racism’(or some other -ism), were deserving of special attention, extra care/compassion, and programs like Affirmative Action. Conservatives accepted the entire narrative about past white supremacism & privilege but argued that the best remedy for historical injustice, regardless of race, was a libertarian colorblind meritocracy. Supposedly, programs like ‘Affirmative Action’ were just another form of ‘racism’ in assuming that blacks are less capable, less motivated, and less adept at fair competition, aka ‘Democrats are the real racists’, usually with reminders that the KKK was a Democratic organization from the likes of Dinesh D’Souza and Ann Coulter.
Thus, everyone from the far left to Conservatism Inc. was sold on the idea of racial equality and rooted for the success of all groups, except that they diverged on the means: Remedial aid to the less successful groups or fair competition for all under meritocracy. So, if the far left argued for more ‘socialist’ policies to help the blacks, Conservatives like Jack Kemp argued for ‘enterprise zones’ to awaken the dormant work ethic and business creativity of the Negroes.
In contrast, The Right, and I mean the real right, had different ideas. While some of them were simply reactionary and longed for the past when whites(and/or Christians) were indeed favored over nonwhite groups, others regarded themselves as ‘racialists’ or race-realists’, which were less loaded terms than ‘racists’ that came to be associated with ‘white supremacism’, KKK, and Nazism. Indeed, one wonders if ‘racism’ or race + ism was intentionally ill-defined to imply that ANY racial thinking(especially among whites) is a form of racial supremacism. Thus, belief in the reality of race was subliminally rendered synonymous with the conviction of racial supremacism.
In fact, however, belief in racial differences could easily be separate from racial supremacism. A white person could believe that blacks are faster and tougher, thereby better suited to win in sports, and that Ashkenazi Jews(and East Asians) have higher average IQs than whites. Race-ism as a political agenda was about appreciating and preserving what’s unique about one’s own people than claiming its superiority.
Especially troublesome to the broad spectrum of acceptable ideologies(from the far left to Conservatism Inc.), the real right of race realists or racialists, who shall henceforth be labeled as race-ists, had other explanations as to why social, cultural, and economic realities were as they were. Race is real, racial differences are real, and an honest assessment of social problems entails more than remedying the legacy of past injustices.
Blacks will dominate sports because they are more muscular and anatomically designed for running, dumping, dodging, and etc. Ashkenazi Jews will dominate brainy areas because they have the highest average IQ. Also, Jewish personality is naturally more prone to will-to-power(or pushiness or chutzpah). East Asians will beat most groups in SAT scores because they have higher IQs than other groups(except the Jews) and possess personalities more suited to ‘grind’ concentration. Brown Mexicans, being average in most respects, will remain mostly out of elite fields in any endeavor. Racial differences will impact other areas as well.
This real right, one willing to address race-ist realities, was anathema to just about everyone from the far left to American Conservatism. Your average GOP operative would rather make common cause with Noam Chomsky or the SPLC than acknowledge even a sliver of validity on the real right. Instead of addressing the complexities of racial realities brought up by the Right, everyone from hardline ‘progressives’ to the likes of Rush Limbaugh lambasted the real right as a bunch of ‘racists’ and ‘white supremacists’.
The usual platitudes from the Left called for radical transformation of society or quasi-spiritual atonement on the part of privileged whites, and the standard playbook from Conservatives was that blacks were held back by the tyranny of public schooling and ‘socialist’ Democratic policies. Supposedly, if blacks were given ‘school choice’, their educational problems would be solved. Never mind that many black kids ended up in mostly black schools because non-blacks CHOSE to move to other areas in fear and loathing of black pathologies.
To be sure, there were certain figures who, though managing to remain in the respectable camp of Conservatism(or libertarianism), gently broached the subject of race with the ‘slight’ possibility of genetic variances that may explain social phenomena. The most famous of these was Charles Murray, but even that bit of suggestiveness led to him being hounded from all sides. (Granted, it wasn’t racial differences per se that offended so many of his ‘detractors’ and ‘debunkers’ but the idea that blacks were deficient in certain areas vis-a-vis other races. Any study showing, for example, that Mexicans are smarter than Arabs or that blacks are better than other races in any given field would be no problem. It’s a problem ONLY IF it suggests black inferiority in certain areas.) When Murray published his latest book on race(and crime), even the Conservative Inc. rag The National Review refused to review or discuss it.
Only the real right was willing to deal honestly with the topic of race & racial differences though the approaches and methodologies varied. There were what might be called the genuine white supremacist types who found in genetics the absolute proof that whites are best at everything while blacks had the IQ of retards. Even though such types had the courage to discuss racial differences, they were politically correct(or racially correct) in their own way, often favoring dogma over reality. For example, there was a website called Castefootball that argued that black domination in sports was the result of anti-white discrimination. So, while white supremacist types will accept the idea that whites are smarter than blacks, they get all churlish when faced with the fact that nonwhites or Other Whites(such as Jews) may have advantages over whites in certain areas. Just like blacks blame ‘racism’ for their failures in school, white supremacists do likewise for their losses in sports(to Negroes).
In contrast to white supremacist types with their racial dogma, another part of the real right was genuinely invested in observing real differences among the races(and within subgroups within races, e.g. East Africans who differ from West Africans, Mongols who differ from the Japanese and the American Indians of deep Asiatic origin, and etc.) This kind of rightism came to be associated with HBD(Human Bio-Diversity), with Steve Sailer as one of its leading lights.
As such, it seemed a welcome alternative to the usually idiotic ramblings of the white supremacist crowd that simply couldn’t accept the fact that whites weren’t the best at everything.
Unfortunately, however, HBD either devolved or degenerated into just another form of supremacism. It didn’t merely notice that Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQs(and therefore have won a remarkable number of Nobel Prizes) but concluded with the justness of Jewish Supremacism, with HBD becoming Hebrew Bio-Domination ideology. So, in the eyes of Sailer, Jews are Nobel-hogging ‘Cowboys’ with all the justification in the world to wipe out the lower-IQ Palestinian ‘Indians’. HBD now hopes that the superior master race of Jews will favor loyal white cucks as their primary sidekicks. As such, it too has grown intellectually and morally bankrupt, just another justification for ethno-supremacism. Instead of white supremacism, it’s about whites kneeling at the altar of Jewish Supremacism, which is presumably okay because of the current false dichotomy of Philo-Semitism or Antisemitism.
Still, HBD did produce one useful notion, that of ‘noticing’. now something of a trope. Honest people notice things, and while there may be varying or contrasting explanations for social phenomena, they shouldn’t go ignored. Too many on the Leftist, Liberal, and Conservative camps preferred to ignore than acknowledge ‘inconvenient’ realities.
Some did notice but fell back on trite explanations. So, if many ‘respectable’ types mostly chose to ignore the problem of black violence/criminality altogether, the leftists and Liberals who addressed the problem blamed it all on past ‘racism’ or ‘systemic racism’ while Conservatives blamed it on Democratic social policies that supposedly suppressed the volcanic amounts of enterprising spirit laying dormant in the black community. Just get the blacks to read some Milton Friedman, and it’s problem fixed.
Given that blacks were persistently the most violent, criminal, and destructive elements in American society, there was a need for a serious and honest debate, but mainstream media mostly chose to ignore the problem while the ‘progressive’ academia mostly relied on Jewish-constructed theories to dump all the blame on white ‘racism’. Granted, many privately honest people kept silent lest they end up as a pariah like Charles Murray who, following the publication of THE BELL CURVE, barely maintained his position in respectable circles.
There were relatively honest researchers in academia, especially in light of new discoveries in genetic sciences that pointed to group differences within the human species, but they disingenuously spun their findings as comporting with the ‘progressive’ agenda.
By and large, however, the predominant discourse revolved on the tired cliché that ‘race is just a social construct(or some myth)’. Another silencing tactic was to associate any candid discussion of race with “19th Century Scientific Racism” and early 20th Century Eugenics(especially as practiced in Nazi Germany), suggesting that any further debate on race was merely dredging up a scientifically outdated/debunked and morally discredited/disgraced subject.
If fearful of honest debate, associate the topic with its darkest historical manifestations, which would be like linking American Capitalism solely with slavery in the South or linking any argument in favor of socialism, however mild, with the worst excesses of Stalinism and the Khmer Rouge. It’s like Christian Zealots condemning anything even slightly pagan or rationalist as Devil Worship for having deviated from the Holy Book. Thus, we know the modern world is a kind of theocracy in its own right. It has its own sacred cows and taboos.
Yet, even the pushers of the official ideology unwittingly(and rather often) let it slip that their claims hardly jibed with reality. For example, why were they resigned to the widespread conviction among US elites that Jews are a special people deserving of extra respect bordering on reverence? If Jews were average in IQ and without great power and wealth, would this have been so? For a country that generates so much noise about justice and equality, how odd that its elites readily support whatever Israel does(no matter how oppressive or bloody) while yawning at the plight of the Palestinians(and other victims of Zionism and Jewish Power in general). And if race is just a myth, why were blacks idolized as super-men on account of their prominence in sports, pop music, and sexual fantasies? If all people bleed red and they’re all the same, why did so many pro-immigration types argue for more Hispanic immigration on grounds that Mexicans provide cheap manual labor? Why were East Asians valued in fields like physics and engineering?
Social reality cannot be properly understood without an honest discussion of biological reality. Society is composed of and maintained by biological beings. Just like beavers and seagulls affect and respond to their environments differently — whoever heard of seagulls building dams? — , the different races(and even ethnic groups), given variances in intelligence and temperament, are unlikely to interact in the same way in any given environment. It goes for the sexes as well.
Sexual-biological differences affect how men and women interact with the reality around them. Compare what a boy does with his bedroom with what a girl does with hers.
Racial differences also account for social differences even though there’s no exact causation between biological race and social reality. Rather, certain outcomes are more likely than others for any given race. For example, whites and yellows are likely to respond differently to a natural disaster than what blacks are prone to do, like in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. One of the ‘memes’ on the internet was the contrast between Hiroshima years after the Bomb compared to Detroit years after the black takeover. In peacetime, black racial tendencies went into overdrive in turning a once orderly and prosperous city into a literal urban jungle.
Given the factor of ‘white guilt’ and white awe of blackness, the problem of race-ism was less about racial differences than the prevalence of black negativities. In other words, had blacks demonstrated higher intelligence, higher business acumen, and higher propensity for maintaining orderly societies, the chances are that most white Leftists and Liberals would be willing to acknowledge racial differences, mostly in favor of blackness. The problem is blacks exhibit special prowess in areas that most excite consumerist/hedonistic whites — sports, pop music, and sexuality — but also are second-to-none in failing at the basic requisites of civilization. They’re champions in beating up teachers, bullying other students, robbing & looting, rampaging & raping, cheating & lying, and generally lacking in anything like accountability & remorse. If blacks were better than whites in everything, white cucks would celebrate and endorse race-ism as validation of magical black superiority. “Gee, they can not only run faster and dance better but can run circles around us lame whites in math and physics, as well as design the tallest skyscrapers and the best spaceships with brilliance bordering on divinity.”
Indeed, the political reality in the US(and the West in general) wasn’t really about race-ism vs ‘anti-racism’ but about honest race-ism vs crypto-‘racism’. American Liberals and Conservatism will tell you that ‘racism’ is the worst thing and we all bleed alike(red), but these very same people have been sucking up to Jews precisely because they worship Jewish smarts, chutzpah, and wealth. American Leftists claim to care about equality, but they pulled their hair out over one dead stupid Negro(George Floyd) but hardly cared about all the victims of blacks, many of whom are nonwhite. Clearly, American Leftists hold blacks as holier than other groups for whatever reasons.
Thus, the value of the real right was not only in arguing for race-as-reality but exposing the hidden or veiled ‘racist’ tendencies among the Leftist, the Liberal, and the Conservative camps. All those groups played their own game of group-favorites, and the reasons had to do with racial(and in some cases ethnic) differences. “Let’s idolize blacks because they dominate the Super Bowl, America’s real religion.” “Let’s suck up to Jews because they got all the wealth and influence.”
The subject of race is key to understanding the real right as it sets the latter apart from the rest, even Conservatism. And it’s the one topic that rendered the real right ‘unacceptable’ in most mainstream, official, or respectable circles.
If anything, on most issues the real right was more moderate than the Conservatives(who had a place at the table of acceptable politics). If Conservatism defined itself as capitalist and individualist against the statism of Liberals and the socialism of the Leftists, the real right tended not to eschew such stark economic formulations. While averse to communism, the real right was appreciative of certain aspects of socialism(not only as a safety net for individuals but as a binding agent for the national folk).
Furthermore, even as the real right valued individualism(as one of the underpinnings of Western progress), it also critiqued the downsides(leading to atomization and alienation) and preferred a measure of communitarianism.
Many (social)Conservatives defined their movement as Christian(especially Christian-Zionist) and expounded on social problems as the product of Godlessness(or retardedly enough, on insufficient support for Israel).
In contrast, the real right, while generally respectful of the great religions, appreciated paganism and scientific materialism as the basis of Western advancements in the arts and sciences.
On most issues, Conservatism Inc. was far more doctrinaire on most issues, eventually to its own detriment as the very forces it championed — the super-rich, the deep state, American militarism, centers of authority, and even Christianity — mostly went Democratic and even ‘woke’. Both the FBI and countless churches hoisted the GloboHomo flag and lionized Negrolatry.
So much for capitalism being synonymous with conservatism or conservative values. Conservatism Inc., ever deferential to the rich and powerful, meekly adapted and submitted, sucking up to the Jews(most of whom are Democratic or Neocon, usually anti-white in service to Jewish Supremacism) and caving to Jewish billionaire donor Paul Singer’s demands that Republicans take it up the arse from homos(and even trannies).
If there was one unbending ‘principle’ among Conservatives, it was an undying loyalty and servility to the rich and powerful. When the richest and most powerful in the US became Jewish globalists, the GOP’s pitch to them was “We’ll be bigger bitches to you than the Democrats are.” The problem was the GOP relied on American Conservative voters who remained ‘less evolved’ on issues such as Gay Rites and Diversity. It’s no wonder that Conservatism Inc. went out on a limb to use Talk Radio and the like to persuade its camp that the ‘culture war’ is over and ‘Good Conservatives’ must just accept the new reality(and even take photos with Lady MAGA) and rewrite Christianity as a cult-worship of Jews.
Most of the real right wouldn’t have any of that. While it was far more flexible on economic and foreign policy, it insisted on noticing patterns that correlated to certain group behavior. Also, its highest priority was the preservation of one’s own race, culture, history, and territory, not a ‘meritocratic’ servility to whichever group with the most money, power, and influence. For the real right, it didn’t matter if Jews were smarter and richer or if blacks were faster and louder. What mattered above all was that the white race, like any other race or people, must by any means necessary preserve itself. To best devise a plan for white racial survival, it was imperative to understand racial differences and how other races posed a challenge to the West.
For example, the black problem was largely genetic in nature and couldn’t be solved by ideology alone, be it leftist, liberal, or conservative. Also, contrary to the US being some kind of colorblind rules-based order, it was really a tribal-supremacist order with Jewish Supremacists at the top who acted in cahoots with the Judeo-Nazis in the Middle East; indeed, one can now objectively argue that Netanyahu is worse than Hitler.
We agree with the fat schlub on one thing: We don’t care if after 100 yrs there’s no one who looks like HIM.
In a way, the JQ was an extension or variation of race-ism. Jewishness, its advantages in abilities and its problems for others, was partly genetic in origin. Within the Zionic Tribe, there are too many personality types like Alan Dershowitz, Bibi Netanyahu, Bill Ackman, Victoria Nuland, Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro, Howard Stern, and Harvey Weinstein, the man with the maniacal passive/aggressive drive to get into the panties of women.
In a way, the entire American Political Culture has been Weinsteined. Just like Weinstein wouldn’t take no for an answer and used all manner of tricks, soft and hard, to stick his penis into the mouths and vaginas of starlets, Jewish Power works tirelessly to subdue every US elite, politician or official, into a whore that takes it up the arse from AIPAC.
Thomas Massie won’t bend over, and so Jewish Power, along with whore-dog Trump and MAGA officials, is hellbent on removing him from the whorehouse known as Congress. Only whores may apply, not someone who asks why everyone is a whore to Zion. This kind of chutzpah cannot be explained by culture alone, and only the real right has been willing to raise the topic, at least as a matter of genetic proclivities, as credit must be given to the real left for having long ago noticed the problems of Zionist power and its corrupting influences. The so-called resurgence of ‘antisemitism’ today is a kind of convergence of the (real)leftist condemnation of Zionism as a form of Jewish racial-imperialist supremacism and the (real)rightist taboo-busting heresy on Jewishness as a unique challenge to the West.
Nothing about the real right, which would emerge as the Alt Right movement with Richard Spencer at the helm, triggered the powers-that-be as much as its heterodoxy on the questions of race and Jewish Power. On matters of race, the real right, dominated mostly by whites, was naturally pro-white and called for white consciousness and white unity. As such, it was opposed to non-white mass immigration, not necessarily out of any deep-seated hostility toward nonwhites but out of a desire to preserve White-Western Civilization. This was threatening to Jews whose power relied on white submission and servility, the product of either ‘white guilt’ or white deracination. ‘White Guilt’ meant whites had to atone for their historical sins by sucking up to the Holy Other primarily embodied by Jews, the greatest victims of all time on account of the Holocaust or Shoah. White deracination meant whites were only individuals striving for personal success(or hedonistic excess, like the foolish characters in Quentin Tarantino movies).
Granted, white ethnicities(as opposed to white racial identity) were acceptable as social markers, but then, the New Europe, as envisioned by the Jewish-controlled EU, posited that just about anyone could be a ‘German’, ‘Irish’, ‘Italian’, ‘English’, ‘Greek’, ‘Swedish’, and etc. Indeed, globalist propaganda often featured Germans and Irish as just as black(or brown) as white. Also, ethnic culture was mostly defined by food and drinks; apparently, if blacks come to Germany and guzzle beer and munch on pretzels and learn to speak some German, they are just as German as the real Germans.
The real right rejected both the cult of ‘white guilt’ and white deracination(as pushed by libertarianism that emphasized individualism, hedonism, and/or personal fulfilment, or ‘muh liberty’). If race is real, then the white race is real, and the white race, the product of tens of thousands of years of evolution and the creator of its own cultures and traditions, had every justification to preserve its blood, land, and history. Thus armed with a sense of agency and autonomy, the real right was less likely to be manipulated by Jewish Power that promoted both guilt and deracination, all the while urging whites to support and defend Jewish identity, culture, history, genetics, and etc.
Naturally, the real right opposed mass non-white immigration. Such a stance was threatening to Jewish Power as an assertion of white identity and interests. While Jews have been counted as white, what if whites who reject nonwhites as the Alien Other also come to feel the same way about Jews, especially given the long history of Jewish subversion and anti-white radicalism? And without Diversity, it’d be more difficult for Jewish Power to play divide-and-rule among the various goyim.
Another threat to the cult of ‘white guilt’ was an honest race-ist reevaluation of genetic differences as pertaining to blacks. The fabric of the ‘white guilt’ narrative had been woven from what whites had done to blacks. New York Times, for example, ran countless stories about ‘white supremacism’ and ‘racism’, invoking the memory of Emmett Till for the gazillionth time to drive home the message that whites must forever be branded with the ‘sin’ of racial discrimination against angelic, saintly, and magical blacks, which culminated in the apotheosis of George Floyd as a figure eclipsing jesus hisself.
In contrast, an honest discussion about black problems squarely identified racial differences as the main source of black pathologies in civilized settings. In other words, blacks are the way they are because of 100,000s of years of evolution in Sub-Saharan Africa, not because of a few hundred years of slavery, servitude, and/or second-class status in the West. Thus, whites could be emancipated from the bogus guilt cult that had been instilled in their brains by sadistic Jews and masochistic do-goody whites who can’t help elevating themselves as holier-than-thou above other whites deemed mired in the secular sin of ‘racism’.
The problem for the real right was that the formidable forces in academia and the media(and other powerful institutions) disingenuously conflated race-ism with ‘racism’, as if there’s no daylight between noticing racial differences & including them in the equation of social analysis AND Nazi eugenics policies. Also, as if there’s no difference between whites being pro-white(like blacks being pro-black and Jews being pro-Jewish) AND whites being supremacist with ambitions of racial domination. In other words, “It’s Okay to be White” is synonymous with “Whites must enslave or exterminate the nonwhite races.”
Therefore, given the ideological climate, it was incumbent on the real right to steer clear of attitudes and ideologies that reeked of neo-supremacism. Given that Conservatism Inc. was allergic to honest discussions of race and given that racial matters on the right had long been associated with Neo-Nazism, KKK, and the like, the necessary breakthrough was to forge a new right that invoked the subject of race soberly and responsively. Reject the milquetoast timidity of mainstream Conservatives and weed out(or reform) the pathological, demented, or misguided(in the best case scenario) elements in the movement.
Spencer seemed uniquely poised to play a significant(or even leading) role in the new direction for the real right. He lacked mastery or expertise in any one area but demonstrated a wide range of abilities, like a fast-learning dilettante. Not exactly a thinker, he nevertheless possessed intellectual chops to converse on political philosophy. Also, his ideological breadth was broader and deeper than those of most American Conservatives whose main(or sole) reference and context were the US as an ‘exceptional nation’.
In contrast, Spencer traced the ideological roots back to Europe’s deep & contradictory history and was willing to salvage the lost opportunities of certain streams of modern right thought, especially Germanic that were intermittently aligned with and maligned by National Socialism.
The question has dogged the right as well as the left: What if a more free-thinking intellectual culture had taken root to fend off or restrain the rising dogma, be it of Hitlerism or Stalinism?
Of course, the question applies to the ‘center’ as well, though often overlooked on the assumption that centrism always means moderation and compromise between the extremes of the left and the right. However, another kind of centrism could be just as dangerous as the far-right or the far-left, a political monomania where the forces of the left and right have been neutralized or appropriated by the Iron Uni-Party, which is the case in the US, which didn’t so much suppress the extremes of the left and the right for a sensible and pragmatic middle as much as silence the critics and dissidents so as to turn virtually all of the political enterprise into a consensus of submission to Jewish Supremacist Zion. If fascism at its best combines the best of the left with the best of the right, Zionism is the worst kind of gangster-fascism that managed to combine the worst of the right with the worst of the left.
There was Spencer the agitator but also Spencer the salesman. Of a privileged background, he had access to individuals of resource and consequence, beyond the reach of most figures on the real right. Even though Spencer’s politics were too edgy for Conservatism Inc., he could navigate through Paleo-Conservative and Old Right circles that were just barely within the realm of acceptable opinion. He had academic links to Paul Gottfried, and he was soon hired by Taki Theodoracopulos to act as editor for Takimag, considered one of the better online conservative ‘webzines’.
Apparently at the time, Spencer’s pros eclipsed the cons, one of which was evident in his first meeting with Theodoracopulos. In the latter’s account, Spencer arrived a bit drunk and, at one point, excused himself from the room, returned, conversed some more, and then left. To Theodoracopulos’s disgust, Spencer had gone off to another part of the complex to puke all over the rug. Worse, he didn’t even apologize for the mess and left it up to the host to clean it up. The incident was rather revealing of Spencer’s character(or lack thereof), foreboding the messes he’d create later without much in the way of accountability. Spencer’s indiscretion would have been disqualifying for 99% of job applicants, but there must have been something there for Theodoracopulos to have hired him anyway. For all his flaws, Spencer perhaps seemed a diamond in the rough.
To better appreciate Spencer’s good fortune, it’s worth discussing the different challenges facing the recruitments of Liberal/Leftist and Conservative/Rightist talents. Among the former the problem derived from surplus, and among the latter from scarcity. As colleges, especially elite ones, are overwhelmingly Liberal, Leftist, Progressive, and/or Democratic, the problem for any left-of-center institution or organization is the excessive amounts of credentialed applicants, made worse by ethnocentrism of Jews(who favor other Jews) and nepotism among the privileged for whom politics is more about status than principles. Even with innumerable Liberal-to-Left operations catering only to like-minded candidates, there’s no paucity of people to choose from. The result of this ‘over-production of elites’ is a simmering resentment in the ‘progressive’ community against those who’ve been allowed in(usually by selling out to the powers-that-be that have made a sham of leftist, liberal, and/or progressives ideas/values).
In contrast, the challenge faced by right-of-center institutions and enterprises is the scarcity of credentialed candidates, especially as colleges have become even more lopsided in their ideological tilt. If, at one time, an elite college might be ⅔ Democratic and ⅓ Republican, today it’s like 95% to 5%(and that’s being rather generous to the Conservatives). While there are still plenty of young conservatives in colleges, most of them pursue pragmatic career paths instead of the world of ideas and politics(or arts & culture).
Also, even right-of-center types who do enter the Humanities and the social/political sciences come under incessant pressure from their ideologies foes and rivals. Some of them eventually turn ‘left’, while others, despite remaining true to their ideological convictions, are conditioned to be extra-sensitive and cautious about what might ‘trigger’ the other side. Even as Conservatives or Rightists, they learn to walk on tiptoes. Having spent years with professors and peers who disapprove of their views, their ideological sense becomes more anxious than confident. Consider the strident sense of outrage among the left-of-center types in contrast to the defensive timidity among the right-of-center types(who often wet their pants with pleas of “I swear to God, I’m not racist, sexist, Anti-Semitic, homophobic, xenophobic, blah, blah, blah, oh boo hoo hoo.”)
Over the years, your typical Conservative has become a eunuch like Rich Lowry(with hunched-up shoulders and dweeby demeanor) or a chunkhead like Ross Douthat. Conservative columnists for the New York Times or Washington Post come in only two varieties: Ultra-tribal Zionist Jews and deracinated white goyim whose primary theme runs along the lines of, “I’ve been castrated of ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, ‘Anti-Semitism’, and ‘homophobia’, so please invite me to a few of your cocktail parties.” Circumcised Jews and castrated whites. There used to be some figures like Sam Francis and Patrick Buchanan in the American Media, but they’ve all been replaced by Cuck Castratis.
If left-of-center outfits turn down countless credentialed applicants, right-of-center outfits have been desperate for new talent. While the dominant Liberal organs generally eschew real leftist voices, the entire spectrum from center-liberal to the far left has been represented in the institutions. Mainstream media have no use for Marxists, but Marxists can still be found in academia. Also, leftist publications are usually tolerated and ignored than demonized and condemned by the powers-that-be. (The Power, even in disagreement with leftist views and agendas, will proudly point to their participation as proof of free speech and discourse in the West, whereas when it comes to rightist views, the Power only expresses dismay that free speech allows such ‘noxious’ and ‘odious’ ideas.)
A printing press with a contract to produce leftist material is likely to be left alone, but it will likely get in trouble if it contracts to print far-right material(unless it’s far-right Zionist or Neocon, which dominates Western Politics; indeed, a rightist white guy cannot even wait tables if ideologically exposed, whereas far-right genocidal Zionists have free access to all the US institutions and even dictate Censchwarzship policies on the entire West). Even once-mainstream conservative voices of yesteryear like Joseph Sobran were thus targeted.
Thus, even as the far-right has the Constitutional right to express its views, the material means to disseminate them have been severely curtailed by pressures exerted on any industry that would do business with it. Granted, this isn’t only ideological but tribal — “Is it good for the Jews?” — as one of the most suppressed ideas and agendas in the US is the BDS movement mostly favored by progressives. The very Jews who suppress ‘far right’ views as ‘racist’ or ‘white supremacist’ will turn around and suppress a cause that denounces Jewish ethno-supremacism and apartheid-like policies against the Palestinians. But then, the very same Jews who sound the alarm on Iran’s nuclear problem do everything in their power to silence critics of Israel’s very real nuclear weapons capability.
It’s worth noting that much of the ideological battle in the US is as much about what one opposes as what one proposes. Indeed, there’s a slew of ideologues, pundits, partisans, and media hitmen on both(or more) sides who are defined more by what they detest than what they espouse. Many on the so-called ‘left’ have only an inchoate sense of what they’re about. Many will claim to be ‘socialist’ in the way that many claim to be ‘Christian’. What really animates them is what they’ve been conditioned to hate, only natural given it’s easier to hate what is ‘bad’ than understand why something is ‘good’. It’s more difficult to understand God(and do His work) than to scream at the Devil. Especially with the fading of Marxism and other Big Ideas, much of ‘progressivism’ has metastasized into a variety of sub-cultures and idolatrous fetishes, usually around homos and Negroes. The Jewish Left, once governed by grand universal theories, now exists mainly to hunt down critics of Jewish Power and its favored agendas, such as Globo-Homo and Negrolatry.
In a way, Francis Fukuyama was right about the End of History, ‘history’ meaning the battle of big ideas. While he erred in concluding that Liberal-Democratic-Capitalism was the final winner, the ideological battles since the end of the Cold War have largely been bereft of big ideas or visions. There are only big thrills and bigger scares(increasingly necessary as the system runs out of positive passions), which usually aligns with whatever Jewish Power at the moment finds most useful or problematic: Obama as the One, the ecstasy of GloboHomo, the wonders of ‘wokeness’, the Big Bad Wolf of ‘Homophobic’ Russia, MAGA as top domestic terrorist threat, #MeToo panic, KKKops murdering saintly innocents like George Floyd, Cavemen Deplorables who won’t take the Covid Jab, ‘Transphobes’ who dare deny the right of men-in-wigs to beat up women in sports, and, of course, the ‘Anti-Semites’ who defame the good name of Israel.
Granted, there are plenty on the ‘right’ whose ‘ideology’ consists mainly of hating the ‘woke’ than standing on any core set of beliefs, values or principles. They are often degenerate in lifestyle, splattered with tattoos and pocked with piercings(and prone to abusing drugs), but supposedly ‘based’ for giving the middle finger to the even bigger perverts on the other side. There was a time when Milo Yiannopoulos was pitched as the rising star on the Right(when Charlie Kirk was merely a blip on the scene) and why? On account of his triggering the censorious ‘progressive’ mobs on college campuses. Good for Milo to stand up for Free Speech, but there was nothing even remotely conservative or rightist about Milo the man, a shameless pervert and hedonistic narcissist who took countless black penises up his homo-bung(and then finally ‘married’ one of the black bung-dongers).
Still, simply on the basis of whom he triggered most, he was labeled as ‘right’ or ‘conservative’. A persecuted Christian may appreciate a Devil-worshiper’s defense of free speech, but a Satanist is still a Satanist, not a fellow brethren in the Church of Christ.
The ideological landscape is muddled as the result of an over-reliance on shared antipathies, as if people hating the same things belong in the same ideological camp. This was the mistake behind the Conservative-Libertarian partnership in the GOP. Likewise, so many progressives who made common cause with Jews against ‘white supremacism’ failed to understand their divergent motives. If well-meaning(or naive) progressives opposed white ‘racism’ from a universal and egalitarian perspective, many Jews opposed it as an obstacle to Jewish racial supremacism. Abe Foxman and Jonathan Greenblatt of ADL may have appropriated progressive-sounding talking points, but they’ve always been motivated by far-right Jewish Supremacism and Zionist Imperialism. In George Orwell’s ANIMAL FARM, the animals believe themselves to be united in their opposition to oppressive mankind, but the smarter Pigs merely used the other animals to get rid of the Man so that they themselves could take over. In the end, it wasn’t about human supremacism vs animal egalitarianism but about human supremacism replaced by hog supremacism.
In the politics of bile, someone left-of-center could always rely on new gigs even if sacked for extremist views or unethical deeds. If one’s anti-white or anti-Christian vitriol is simply too much for a media outlet, there’s still the chance of a gig in academia or some other field. Take Talia Lavia who misreported a government agent as having a Nazi tattoo and was let go at the New Yorker magazine, only to resurface in a cushy university position. Or take the loathsome Sabrina Rubin Erdely who defamed a fraternity with a rape hoax that set off a national hysteria. One would think a creature that foul would be shunned by all. According to Wikipedia, she is still accepted in some circles and allowed to stay in the game. “As of 2021, Erdely writes for the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia and co-hosts the Jewish Philly podcast. She previously taught writing courses at Temple University and the University of Pennsylvania. She also serves as director of content for CTRL+M Health, a headache app.” Imagine that. A vicious Jewish hate-hoaxer against whites, and she is allowed to teach college courses and work for Jewish institutions.
If Conservative institutions have problems scouting for credentialed talent, it’s been far more difficult for the real right. Conservative publications and think-tanks are conferred marginal respectability if they conform to one of two conditions (1) Constitutionalism, thereby championing individualism and ‘meritocracy’ over race and culture (2) Neocon-ism, or being bound to serving the interests of Jewish Power and Zionism. The second condition proves that ‘racism’ is permissible, even mandatory, among Conservatives as long as it prioritizes Jewish identity and interests above all others, though, cleverly enough, the supremacism is usually spun as providing protection for helpless Jews still stalked by the evil of ‘antisemitism’, such as telling Jews to stop beating up on Palestinians.
Of course, neocon-ism isn’t categorized as Far Right or racial-supremacist because Jews control the media and academia. It’s not ‘apartheid’ or ‘genocide’ when Jews do it.
Cleverly enough, before Neoconservatism outed itself as full-blown genocidal Jewish Imperialism, it had earned points as a moderating force on the Right, i.e. it rejected the sins of ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’ of the Old Right and forged a new movement that was supposedly more tolerant and accepting of genuine social progress as attained by the positive aspects of Liberalism during the transformative eras of the New Deal and the Civil Rights Movement.
George W. Bush, the stooge of Neocons, was branded as the ‘compassionate conservative’ who’d raised the math and reading scores of black and brown kids in Texas. This New Conservatism was even willing to entertain the supposed virtues of ‘gay marriage’ as a ‘conservative value’.
So, even though the main obsession of the Neocons was Israel First foreign policy and Jewish supremacist global hegemony, they crafted a narrative in which they took credit for having cleansed the Republican Party of ‘extremist’ caveman-likes of Patrick Buchanan and Sam Francis in favor of compromise and ‘compassion’. Except that when it came to their truest objectives, Jewish Supremacism, it was their way or the highway.
Even though Neoconism was the most extremist racial supremacist ideology in US politics, culminating in the genocide we see in Gaza today(as well as the Judeo-Nazi alliance in Ukraine), it managed to fool most Americans that it was a milder form of conservatism. Even many hardline Conservatives fell for this BS, often rebuking the Neoconservatives in the GOP as RINOS or ‘Trotskyite’-socialists. While it’s true that Jewish Neocons like the donor Paul Singer campaigned for GloboHomo and the like(while others of his kind were okay with ‘statism’), they were essentially ultra-ethno-supremacists who regarded their Tribe as the rightful master race. In other words, the Neocons are as far right as the Neo-Nazis but have been clever(and influential) enough to pass as center-right. Thus, the ‘far right’ label remained pasted on others, usually white goyim.
If Conservatism(along with libertarianism) occupied a place at the margins of mainstream political discourse, rightism(the real kind) was given no quarter. If right-of-center whites wished to join the debate, they better leave their racial identity and interests at the door. Hotels have coat-checks, and the media, academia, and think-tanks have race-checks, for whites of course. A Jew or Negro could don the loudest race-coat in the ballroom but whites better wear t-shirts blazoned with abstract ideas, never with identity-and-interests. (Granted, the ostensibly colorblind and idea-centric white conservatives are reminded to get all worked up about the wonders of identity-and-interests for the Jews.)
The case of Jason Richwine perfectly illustrated the state of ‘acceptable’ or ‘respectable’ Conservatism. A rare rightist product of Ivy League education, he’d once written about the impact of racial differences on society. Heritage Foundation, instead of sticking up for one of its promising young stars, dropped him like a hot potato. Needless to say, Heritage also caved on GloboHomo and put a fat black woman in leadership position to yammer about ‘racism and shit’.
That said, the internet was gradually shifting the ideological balance. Unlike print publications that require office space, maintain a permanent staff, and produce tangible items, it didn’t cost much(or anything at all) to maintain a website, and until 2017, the worldwide web was mostly censorship-free, with plenty of sites hosting highly controversial material. There was a time when Daily Stormer easily acquired web-hosting services. The real problem with the far-right community was its cartoonish monomania; numbnuts refighting World War II in their imagination(and in their basements) was hard to take seriously.
The trick was to be bold and edgy but also serious and sensible. Takimag stood out among the conservative outlets daring to challenge some of the shibboleths of Conservatism Inc. If the likes of Breitbart argued that the Republicans weren’t hardline enough with their own stated goals, Takimag questioned if those goals were worthwhile in the first place.
Money and connections go a long way, and Taki Theodoracopulos had both to enjoy some leeway with ideological indiscretions. A lesser man without money and the glam factor would have been dismissed as a crank. Apparently, the respectable and/or celebrity types with ties to Theodoracopulos — and they weren’t all conservative — indulged Takimag as a kind of eccentricity, shtick, or affectation of an old man with too much money.
Nevertheless, for all his vanity and narcissism, Theodoracopulos seems to have taken politics seriously and took a chance with puke-boy Richard Spencer. Given that most right-of-center types ranged from run-of-the-mill Con Inc. types to low-IQ & low-info fans of Talk Radio to stodgy Paleoconservative cranks to Neo-Nazis(usually neurotic & cryptohomo or psychotic & thickskulled), it must have been refreshing to meet someone like Richard Spencer, despite his inebriation and vomiting. Comparatively speaking, Spencer was from a ‘good family’, well-spoken, intellectual(and product of elite college), and willing to venture outside the Overton Window(without going “Heil Hitler”, but that’s another story as events turned out).
At the time, despite the puke incident, Spencer probably seemed like a golden boy, one of the more promising candidates for the future of conservatism and resurgence of the right. Sam Francis was fat and ugly(and old when he died). Pat Buchanan could rile up a crowd, but there was something heavy and dark about him. Also, as a Catholic Traditionalist, he lacked vision and imagination and mainly harked back to a faded White Christian America. David Duke had the looks but couldn’t shed his past KKK association(as the Jews always labeled him as the former-KKK leader), and his ideological focus was rather narrow. Some on the Right had ideas but lacked sociability. Some had organizational or leadership skills but lacked original ideas.
In contrast, here was Spencer with affability, organizational skills, and intellectual substance(if not depth); and when he pushed himself, he could produce a thoughtful column or an original essay — his piece DONALD TRUMP: NAPOLEON OF THE CURRENT YEAR is maybe the best piece on the MAGA phenomenon circa 2016 — , which was a lot more than what could have been said of William F. Buckley whose snooty charm concealed an essentially vapid mind of no real conviction except ‘muh privilege’. He was to the conservative masses what Imelda Marcos was to the impoverished women of the Philippines, an avatar of sophistication and exclusivity that mostly eluded hoi polloi who voted for the GOP. His books were less about real matters than proper manners, essentially guides on political etiquette.
But for whatever reasons — Spencer’s editorial decisions, Theodoracopulos’ vanity, clash of personalities, contrasting ideological agendas, and etc. — Spencer was dropped from Takimag. He wasn’t willing to tone down his views to pursue a path at Conservatism Inc., and online publications that were right of Takimag weren’t sufficiently edgy or avant-garde for his vision. Furthermore, Spencer didn’t want to be just another pundit or commentator; he wanted to create and lead a movement. No more armchair conservatism where one griped about the changing world without doing anything substantive about it(and eventually falling in line with the Jewish Agenda spun as ‘conservative values’). The New Right would have to energize, even ‘radicalize’, the younger generation to get out into the streets with torches(even if only tiki-torches).
In this, Spencer was clearly drawing inspiration from the modern right movements of the early 20th century that captivated the youth, especially in colleges. Today, we think of higher education as the bastion of leftism, real or fake, but it wasn’t always so, especially in the past when admission to college was far more restrictive and drew students from a certain social milieu that was often right-wing. Also, under the influence of thinkers like Friedrich Nietzsche, much of the modern right had been ‘liberated’ from Christian dogma and ‘stodgy’ traditionalism. It had imbibed certain aspects of Romanticism(with its nature-worshiping reaction against industrial society) and appropriated the radical spirit of Marxism, eventually leading to the left-right fusion of Fascism and National Socialism.
It all came to a crashing end in World War II, and the official narrative held that the modern right had totally discredited itself intellectually and morally in the depravities of Mussolini-and-Hitler-worship.
The contrarian side of Spencer astutely understood that there was much to salvage from the wreckage. The modern right had made fatal mistakes and done truly evil things, but it never made sense to throw out the baby with the bathwater. And despite the official narrative, the postwar left silently drew inspiration more from Nietzsche(and Heidegger) than from Karl Marx via the existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre and, moreover, the twisted will-to-power inversions of Michel Foucault.
In order to distance itself from the discredited evil modern right, the post-war moderate right and conservatism increasingly went out of its way to denounce anything associated with neo-paganism, Fascism, and National Socialism. It rejected the notions of race and took up colorblind ideology of ‘universal meritocracy’ or invoked Christian values of love, forgiveness, and above all redemption. American Conservatism’s main theme was about conserving the revolutionary capitalist engine of creative-destruction. If, even in the 1960s and 1970s, American Conservatism had some critical things to say about MLK, by the 1980s it had totally joined the Liberal chorus in canonizing the Magic-Tragic Negro as bigger than god.
But most of all, and it’s even truer now than in the past, the Western right-of-center movements sought the approval of the Jews despite most Jews being anti-white-right. By sucking up to Jews, supposedly the biggest victims of Nazism, the Conservative and right-of-center parties hoped to demonstrate that they had NOTHING to do with the Bad Evil Right that unleashed World War II and did the Holocaust. Yes, World War II was indeed ‘The Good War’. Besides, how could they possibly be ‘Anti-Semitic’ or ‘racist’ when they flatter and praise Jews at every turn and insist that their governments sign endless blank checks for Israel. Furthermore, they went out on a limb to argue, groveling at the feet of Jews, that the Liberals and the Left were now the ‘new Anti-Semites’, whereas Conservatives had totally reformed and purged themselves of the ‘rabid and virulent scourge of antisemitism’.
How did the logic go? You see, the Left was critical of Zionism’s treatment of the Palestinians, and the Liberals(like Jimmy Carter among others) on occasion pleaded with the Zionists not to go too far. In contrast, the Conservatives pledged blind support and obedience to Israel and the Zionist enterprise. By appeasing Jewish supremacism and imperialism, brownnosing Conservatives hoped to gain forgiveness and favoritism from the rich and powerful Jews(who now made whites of all stripes tremble in fear).
Given that Conservatives were generally uneasy with the socio-political agendas of the Jews, most of whom identified as Liberals, Leftists, Progressives, or Democrats, their surest card for gaining a measure of Jewish blessing and approval was by outdoing the Democrats in the support of Israel, no easy feat as the Democrats acceded to 99% of all the demands, not least because over 60% of funds to the Party came from Jews. Thus, Conservatives were accusing Liberals of the new ‘antisemitism’ on account of that tiny 1% that the Democrats didn’t deliver to Israel.
Of course, it was all very amusing to the Jews who knew that the Conservative brown-nosing to Zion wasn’t really about morality or spirituality but about craven servility to power, wealth, and prestige. If Jews were poor and powerless, no one would have paid them any mind. Also, being rich and powerful, Jews had also gained control of the ‘gods'(or what’s sacred or profane) and forged a post-war narrative that elevated Anne Frank to new madonna status and ‘resurrected’ every dead Jew as a mini-christ who died for the sins of the White Christians(whose ancient antisemitism finally culminated in Nazism).
Needless to say, the new dynamic between Jewishness and White Conservatism was weirdly paradoxical. If the big lesson of World War II and the Holocaust was the evil dangers of ‘racism’(even though Germans mostly killed other whites and the Japanese mostly killed other yellows) and ‘antisemitism’, then the foremost mission of the reformed moderate right must be a total rejection of any notion of racial or ethnic supremacism, exceptionalism, and/or imperialism.
Oddly enough, White Conservatives went about showcasing their contrition and ideological baptism through a blind allegiance to Jewish Power, especially in its Zionist manifestation(perhaps in the Churchillian hope that Zionism would wean Jews away from radical politics or cultural subversion).
However, this kind of support for Jewishness was just another form of racial supremacism and domination. After all, the Zionist project didn’t build a Jewish homeland on empty land but erased the existing population of Palestinians. Also, by encouraging Jewish arrogance, terrorism, and tyranny over a goy population(Palestinians and other Arabs), White Conservatives(and Liberals too, of course) were merely whetting Jewish appetite for more hegemonism and domination. If an antelope offers a zebra to a hyena as a sign of friendship, will the hyena spare the antelope out of gratitude? Or, hungry for more meat, will it go after the antelope as well? If you lend aid to a psycho serial killer in the taking of a life, do you really think the psycho is going to spare you? Stalin aided Hitler in the dismemberment of Poland, only to find his domain targeted next(though the vice versa argument could also be made). If you indulge the vice of another, it’s unlikely to be a virtue unto you.
Of course, Jews understood the moral contradiction in this. Regarding both White Liberals and White Conservatives, their respective near-total deference to Jewishness and Israel was perversely odd(especially given that one of the big lessons of World War II was the dangers of blind unquestioning obedience to power, be it to Hitler or Hirohito). If White Liberals took moral pride in championing racial equality and justice, how could they possibly be okay with Zionist tyranny over the Palestinians(and criminal acts like the attack on USS Liberty)? If White Conservatives claimed salvation in having purged their hearts and souls of the scourge of ‘racism’(of which ‘antisemitism’ was a part), what were they doing excusing one Zionist monstrosity after another and showing zero regard for the Palestinians(and other brutalized folks by the Israel regime and global Jewish gangsterism)?
Thus, Jewishness made a mockery of White Politics, Liberal and Conservative. And deep in their hearts, Jews saw in the White Conservative support of Jews yet another variation of ‘antisemitism’, except that it now favored Jews as the ubermensch over Palestinians as untermensch. Because Jews valued the unconditional support, they kept mum about the irony and expressed appreciation, but they knew that White Conservatism hadn’t reformed at all. It just substituted old heroes and villains with new ones. Thus, even as Jews express gratitude to figures like Mike Huckabee and Tom Cotton as friends of Israel, they privately understand how such goyim are no different from the Germans and their collaborators who were delighted by the mass deaths of Jews in the Holocaust. If Huckabee and Cotton were Germans in the 1930s, they’d be saying God favors the ‘Aryans’ against the subhuman Christ-killing ‘Semites’.
But then, it all makes sense in a sick twisted way because the Holocaust Narrative was never about humanity. The outrage wasn’t really about the mass murder of six million HUMANS. The outrage was about six million JEWS premised on Jewish lives being more precious than other lives. It’s been said that around 50(or even 60) million people died in Europe and about 30 million died in Asia, mostly in China, in World War II. Jews regard the Holocaust not as a part of a greater tragedy but as the only tragedy that matters. When the Chinese visit Russia to commemorate World War II, they pay tribute to the Russian deaths, and when Russians visit China to commemorate World War II, they pay tribute to the Chinese deaths. They don’t pretend that ‘only my people’ suffered. But wherever Jews go, all they ever emphasize is “muh people’s deaths”, as if all goy deaths are extraneous, like the blurred background in a movie.
In this sense, the Holocaust isn’t about the tragedy of six million lives that perished with tens of millions of other lives but about the indispensable sanctity of Jewish lives, with the implication that a single Jewish life is more precious than all the worthless goy lives.
Currently, we see this monstrous logic play out in the discussion on Gaza. Israel has massacred and starved countless people in Gaza, but it’s always about the handful of ‘hostages’(and never mind Israel has imprisoned many more innocent Palestinians and tortured and raped a good number of them). Day after day, Israel kills hundreds more, but all you get from brown-nosing US politicians is “We have to save the hostages.” Using such logic, what did the Nazis do wrong? If a German was killed by Jews or some partisan group, didn’t the Wehrmacht, like the IDF, have the moral justification to lay waste to entire towns and villages?
Of course, such logic makes sense if you believe ‘Aryans’ are superior to non-Aryans… or if you believe a Judeo-Semite is a member of the master race(of ‘cowboys’) who live by rules beyond those of lowly goyim(like savage ‘Indians’).
It’s no wonder that Jewish-and-White relations haven’t been properly resolved(if such is ever possible). Most Jews claim to be ‘liberal’ or ‘leftist’, but when White liberals and leftists(the real kind) expect Jews to accept equal justice for all, Jewish Democrats scoff and demand special treatment for the Tribe and Israel. Thus, both ‘blue’ and ‘red’ states go after the BDS movement on account of it condemning apartheid-like policies in the Occupied Territories. Whenever White Liberals and Leftists plead with Jews to be more fair with the Palestinians, Jews threaten to give more of their money to the Republicans, for whom Israel-cucking is the only game left in town. Conservatives think, whatever the moral cost and degradation to the American soul, the only sure strategy is to win over more Jews who got the media and the ‘medicine'(in the American Indian sense).
However, in appeasing the Jews for more donations and ‘spiritual’ association(or the benediction from the Holy Holocaust People and the Chosen of God), White Conservatives are supporting yet another form of racial supremacism and bigotry, which actually makes Jews nervous because the world views the Zionist-GOP alliance as neo-imperialist and supremacist.
When Jews attack Trump as Literally-Worse-than-Hitler but then endorse the Trump-Netanyahu alliance, even dimwits begin to wonder, “Jews are pulling some shit on us.” If Jews really believe Trump is ‘Hitler’, why do they value his support for Israel? Is Israel a kind of Nazi-state?
In all this shameful mess, are dignity and self-respect even possible in the Jewish-and-White partnership? Suppose you had troubled relations with someone and want to make amends and get along. But suppose he comes to you and says you have to bend over, take his dong up your bung, and then turn around and suck your own fecal matter off his dong that’s been ravaging your bung. Suppose you comply. Now, can you possibly respect yourself after such the act? Do you really believe he will respect you(as his ‘faggoty’ bitch)? Sure, he and you may pretend to be good friends, but the fact is he’s the master and you’re the bitch, and he knows it, and you know it, and he knows you know it and you know he knows it. What is Donald Trump but the Big Rump for Netanyahu to bugger every time he comes to D.C.?
Spencer had three options. Hustle for a milquetoast Republican post in Conservative Inc., as operative or opinion-maker. Or, linger in barely respectable outlets like Takimag that flirted with real rightism but remained anchored to libertarian and Paleoconservative talking points. Or, go his own way and embark on something new to make a difference. He opted for the third path, and started an online journal called Alternative Right, which was met with reasonable fanfare in dissident circles.
However, it was soon evident that the project wasn’t going so smoothly. Contrary to hope and expectation, either there wasn’t a deep enough well of dissident right talent to draw from or, if there was, Spencer simply lacked the skill, patience, and respect to attract the best. Maybe there was a new generation of dissident right thinkers and activists about to emerge, but Spencer was distracted by fund-raising and the like from the essential demands of leadership in theory and practice. Indeed, Spencer wrote relatively few articles for the journal and too often relied on second-raters like ‘Richard Hoste’(who’d later emerge as the insufferable Banana Boy Richard Hanania). The editorial duties were largely given to Colin Liddell and Andy Nowicki. Liddell later revealed himself to be a nasty bad-faith actor and sneering jerk, soon to turn his bitterness against everyone on the Right. Nowicki had interesting ideas and something generally in short supply on the right, genuine curiosity and empathy for other positions. But he lacked the drive to be part of an edgy movement and receded into semi-catatonic state, posting videos on Youtube as something akin to Napoleon Dynamite hero-worshiping the Joker — unsurprisingly, he turned out to be a Catholic, member of the corrupt church of pedophiles and cryptohomo gangsters; Catholicism has always been a damp rag on the neo-pagan sparks of the Modern Right.
Even worse was Spencer recruiting the likes of Alex Kurtagic the Neo-Nazi whose pseudo-intellectual kitschy ideas on arts/culture were downright embarrassing and whose idolatry revolved around hero-worship of Nazi men and women as models for the white race. If the promise of the ‘alternative right’ was to offer something different from the castrated Conservative Inc. and demented Neo-Nazism, Spencer inched closer to the latter(and it would eventually be his undoing at Charlottesville as his own Battle of the Little Big Horn).
Readers who’d gravitated to the Alternative Right journal with real expectation began to lose interest, especially with Kurtagic’s tripe turning the site into something closer to Greg Johnson’s Himmlerite Counter-Currents with its Homo-Nazi fantasies of “What if Hitler had defeated Russia and reduced the Slavs to a bunch of helots.” (Counter-currently, the Homo-Nazis and Jewish Supremacists are now united on the subject of Ukraine as both deem the Russo-Slavs as innately inferior, therefore deserving to toil under the supremacism of ‘Aryans’ or ‘Semites’).
The Alternative Right journal was treading water, falling way short of what it promised to be. And the more it attracted the likes of Kurtagic, it alienated others. At the very least, online journals and websites like American Renaissance, Occidental Observer, and Counter-Currents knew what they were about and concentrated on their chosen fields and agendas.
In contrast, Spencer’s Alternative Right vacillated from a comprehensive(and/or experimental) approach to the cultivation of a New Right and doctrinaire Neo- or Quasi-Nazi talking points, especially with the inclusion of numbnuts like Alex Kurtagic(who would have done better at Counter-Currents or Stormfront). It’s one thing to encourage free-flowing debates among a wide array of dissident rightists but quite another to become mired in a morass of confusion. If Spencer was going to define a new movement, he should have taken charge and developed his own set of ideas. Too often, he just invoked Carl Schmitt or handed the mission-management to others, leading to the worst-case scenarios of Liddell with his pointless invectives and Kurtagic’s canonization of dead Nazis.
Things got so bad that Spencer went for a sudden makeover with an overnight purge of Nowicki and Liddell without warning & consultation and rebranding of the site as the Radix Journal, as if a rebranding would do the trick. The move revealed the unsavory and disreputable side of Spencer. If he wanted a change of direction and new blood, the proper thing would have been to discuss his plans beforehand with Liddell and Nowicki who, for all their problems and limitations, had done their jobs. But to unceremoniously dump them without warning betrayed Spencer’s capacity for backstabbing.
Unsurprisingly, the rebranding didn’t do much for Spencer’s enterprise. There was also an idea floated about marketing the Radix Journal in print form as a glossy magazine, but it took forever to produce the first issue(which was likely the final as well). As long as Spencer overly relied on others to serve as the site’s main thinkers, writers, and functionaries while he was off somewhere doing who-knows-what, his project was going to remain ill-defined and confused.
As things stood, had it not been for the Presidential Campaign of 2016, Radix Journal would have been just another dissident right website on the internet. Perhaps edgier and more eccentric than others, but no real difference.
But then, Trump’s run in 2016 was like the jackpot for Richard Spencer. If ever good fortune fell on someone’s lap, this was it. Word got around that Trump’s campaign was especially energized through the internet. Instead of going with the usual GOP talking points, Trump often denounced the Neocon foreign policy and addressed issues that struck a nerve with white voters growing ever warier of America’s racial and cultural future.
The mainstream media, all too familiar with progressive ideology, Liberal politics, and Conservative Inc. talking points, were at a loss to comprehend what was going on. How was it that Trump deviated from the standard platform of the GOP but was surging in the polls to the bitter anger of Establishment Republicans and the Neocons? What was this enthusiasm about and where did it spring from?
This was unfamiliar territory for the mainstream media that had pretty much blocked out most ideological expressions right of Conservative Inc. ‘Right-wing Talk Radio’ was often excoriated by Liberals as ‘extreme’, but it was mostly standard Republican rhetoric done with barroom bluster than country club cordiality: More tax cuts now, Big Gubment(or ‘statism’) is the problem, less regulation dammit, more military spending, Israel is our greatest ally, watch out for Sharia law in your community, it’s those ‘leftists’, ‘Democrats are the real racists’, it’s them ‘Marxist’ professors, ‘socialism’ is taking over, Putin Bad, the Chicoms are coming, and etc. The kind of guff one usually got from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin.
Talk Radio personalities certainly vented their spleen, but the ire was directed at prescribed targets, usually the most inane or irrelevant things, as if to misdirect conservative opposition and populist rage away from the real culprits. (Alex Jones sometimes hit closer to the mark but leaned on conspiracy-theorizing to obfuscate the troublesome implications of his reporting. In other words, worry more about some secret pedophile cabal doing satanic rituals in a forest than about Zionists running elite institutions.)
The Trump campaign struck a nerve in US politics, and the mass media grasped at straws to understand the unexpected and unprecedented appeal. It was then that homo-mischling provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, then still on the margins of acceptability, wrote a rather flattering piece on a political phenomenon called the ‘alternative right’, within which enthusiasm for Donald Trump was especially spirited and spicy. Among the personalities interviewed by Yiannopoulos was Ramzpaul who rejected both standard GOP talking points and steered clear of Neo-Nazi elements. Apparently, the Alternative Right(or Alt-Right) represented the ‘punk’ element in the shifting Zeitgeist. Controversial to be sure, but it rejected braindead dogmatism and stale officialdom to forge a new culture on the right more in touch with what a lot of people, especially white folks, were feeling in the moment of rapid transformation.
The ‘Alt-Right’ label became the talk of the town, hopefully for those seeking a fresh alternative to ossified GOP politics and ominously for those spinning Trump’s campaign as ‘white supremacist’ or crypto-Nazi.
When Yiannopolous’s article was published, the Alt Right seemed a big tent circus representing a wide range of views and interests, eager for something new after decades of American Conservatism’s canonization of the Gipper. The Cold War was long over, and Reagan Era issues had no relevance to the new challenges, especially given that the supposed ‘socialist’ and ‘radical’ Bill Clinton had, if anything, expanded the economic policies of the Republicans, leading to the emergence of the ‘Uni-Party’, or political singularity.
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/
Thus, no single voice could claim the mantle of the Alt Right, a phenomenon steadily taking shape through the input from everyone from well-connected political operatives(always on the lookout for new fashions) to anonymous internet trolls, some of whom referred to themselves as ‘shitlords’. The Alt Right caught not only the GOP and the mainstream media(and perhaps the Trump campaign) by surprise but also much of the dissident right sphere as well.
Figures like Jared Taylor had long despaired that their sincere effort and dedication had been in vain, a case of crying out in the wilderness, but suddenly many of their ‘inconvenient’ and ‘uncomfortable’ themes were going ‘viral’ as ‘memes’ that not only changed the conversation but made people laugh. ‘Far-right’ views were becoming kind of ‘cool’ and ‘punk’, no longer the ‘debunked’ pseudo-intellectual hang-ups of cranks but the fast-and-furious free-speak of rebels and mavericks. Did cyberpunk go ‘nazi’?
Even left-of-center types grudgingly admitted that the Alt Right was quite adept at trolling and meme-ing. Being outside the Overton Window, the dissident right had more reasons to hone their skills as les enfants terribles and bad boys & girls. Left-of-center satire(like Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher) catered to the powerful and remained well within the Overton Window, whereas right-of-center satire, like that of Sam Hyde, irreverently milked sacred cows for all they were worth, of course with the likelihood of being severely curtailed in the culture-at-large.
As respite and compensation, the internet offered even purged and blacklisted voices a forum to express themselves, however limited in reach. (Even when internet censorship was enforced in earnest in 2017, the Daily Stormer somehow managed to find one host after another in an endless game of whack-a-mole. And Nick Fuentes, among the most blacklisted figures in recent memory, not only managed to hold onto his core audience but to grow it. The so-called ‘groypers’ became like a parody of the persecuted early Christians spreading the Gospel.
Whether Richard Spencer called on the mainstream media or the mainstream media sought him out(on account of his having run a journal called ‘Alternative Right’), he was soon to emerge as the ‘leader’ or at least ‘spokesman’ of the movement. At this juncture, Spencer could have used his newfound fame(or notoriety, not always a bad thing in our publicity-driven culture) to either popularize or radicalize the movement.
For a while, he seemed to appreciate the big tent vibes of the moment. His projects with the Alternative Right website and then Radix Journal had sputtered, but he was now sought out by the big media to explain the Alt Right phenomenon and its relation to Donald Trump. Some in the media earnestly wanted to understand while others likely promoted Spencer(and his brand of rightism) to smear Trump as a friend of Neo-Nazis.
Instead of opting for ideological flexibility and political generosity, especially given his own good luck, Spencer was increasingly motivated by personal vanity, ideological purity spirals, and radical vanguard conceits. Thus, there was increasingly the talk of the Alt Light as distinct from the Alt Right. Perhaps, such distinctions were inevitable, but it was too fast, too soon.
If you’re part of a nascent movement, as yet so far removed from power, it’s wiser to make friends on the basis of shared interests than enemies over ideological pissing contests. In other words, wait for the tree to grow before pruning it. (Paradoxically, many alternative right themes spread faster and farther after the implosion of Richard Spencer’s Alt Right movement. Left to their own devices, the various dissident right viewpoints began to gain traction despite the ramped up censorship on social media in the aftermath of the Charlottesville fiasco. As things turned out, Spencer as gardener-and-gatekeeper of the Alt Right had had the opposite of the intended effect. It was he that turned out to be the pest-and-weed that had to be removed for the movement to grow. Today, even many Jews are openly grappling with the JQ.)
Instead of honestly sizing up the moment, i.e. his fortunes as the Alt Right spokesman was mostly a matter of luck, Spencer’s narcissism went into overdrive. He convinced himself that his will-to-power thrust him into the limelight as the ‘bad boy’ darling of the mainstream media, a Thor-like lightning rod of fascination and outrage, all on account of his brilliance and charisma. Apparently, his magnetic aura was simply irresistible, not least as he cashed in his fame by bedding a series of women, even attractive Liberal Jewesses. He began to feel invulnerable, like James Bond who falls out of an airplane without a parachute but lands on his two feet, usually on a yacht with gorgeous bikini-clad babes.
He began to feel entitled and ‘inevitable’ as the rising star of the New Right Movement. It was as if he had the best of both worlds: Just enough bad boy reputation to win street cred with the radical right but also the respectable markers of good family, elite education, and inner-circle connections, someone who could get along with both the Alt Right and populist MAGA(and even the GOP establishment), kind of like the product of a lab experiment fusing David Duke with Mitt Romney.
In his euphoric megalomania, Spencer forgot that his forte was in balancing the alternative and the mainstream. If he leaned too far in one direction, he could no longer serve as the go-to-conduit between the metropole and the barbarians. Become too close to the mainstream, and he’d lose trust among the dissident right and the far-right. But, if he threw in his lot with the extreme elements, real or imagined, the mainstream would feel compelled to cut him off as too disreputable; he’d lose his diplomatic immunity and be treated as a bomb-thrower and pariah.
For a while, his instincts seemed sound, and he enjoyed a good run. He was able to rent out space at the Reagan building in Washington D.C. for Alt Right events. He was given protection at college campuses and had reasonably constructive back-and-forth exchanges with a mostly Liberal, Progressive/ and/or Democratic audience.
This smooth sailing period of his emergence as the Alt Right spokesman lent him a false sense of security, as if the protection of the US Constitution, along with his radical will-to-power and provocative fascination to mainstream media types, would provide the necessary elbow-room for him to maneuver and advance the movement by leaps and bounds.
Yet, for a self-professed admirer of Carl Schmitt, as someone who purported to understand the true nature of power and its ruthless logic for self-preservation and domination, he was incredibly naive as to what the Power might have in store for him if he stepped too far out of line.
When push comes to shove, Rule of Lawfare trumps the Rule of Law, indeed as the Alt Right, MAGA, and pro-Palestinian demonstrators were rudely reminded in the coming years. All the legal protections and stated principles in the book don’t amount to a plate of beans if the Power decides to throw the book at you. Ideas, however radical, are tolerated by the Power, but not if they spawn a movement. From the paranoid Jewish perspective, a lot of white wood laying about is no cause for alarm, but it’s another story if some ‘Nazi’ comes along to set fire to them. Then, anything must be done to prevent a white forest fire.
One thing for sure, for all his appealing qualities(as personality and communicator), Spencer wasn’t indispensable to the mainstream media, nor even to the dissident right. If he got way out of line, the mainstream could just as easily break him as it had made him(into a household name). And the dissident right could disown him, regarding him as an erratic liability than an effective asset.
In time, like the dog of Aesop’s tale that lost both the bone and its reflection, Spencer would lose both the mainstream and the dissident sphere. It was a case of an astounding lack of self-awareness. How ironic that Spencer, who often made the distinction between the political and the inspirational, forgot his own lesson. To play in politics, that is to win an election or gain position in the status quo, one cannot stray too far from the Overton Window; one must play clever and cautious, two steps forward, one step back. In contrast, an inspirational figure will face countless roadblocks but may be held in high esteem as a man of principle, e.g. Ron Paul had no chance of winning the Presidency but stuck to his guns and earned the respect of many, however grudging.
Spencer should have known that his prominence as the voice of the Alt Right owed to his mercurial qualities, a savviness of playing the middleman between words and action, between underground controversy and mainstream consensus. He could be edgy and a bit dangerous but also reassuring and conciliatory. No one looked to him as a deep thinker, ideological purist, or (counter)revolutionary firebrand. His forte was to play the balancing act, like what William F. Buckley did for Cold War Conservatism.
Thus, ideally he could mix and bargain with everyone from the far right to the Liberal Mainstream. It’s no wonder he was invited onto mainstream TV shows to give his perspectives, risqué but not reckless, on politics and culture.
After all, he hadn’t done anything as foolish as donning a KKK robe, which haunted David Duke forever. But a fool is a fool, and a fool just can’t help himself. So, if Richard Spencer and his brand of the Alt Right rode to their highwater mark on the coattails of Donald Trump’s surprising victory in 2016, it wasn’t long before the whole thing would come crashing down, in the process giving the Power the ‘moral’ ammunition to go full throttle on censorship and silence many others as well.
The beginning of the fall was of course what came to be known as ‘Heilgate’, though it wasn’t the fatal blow, which would be just around the corner. While Trump and MAGA enjoyed their moment of glory, the media seemed more intrigued with how Spencer and the Alt Right gauged the political earthquake. Though relatively small-scale compared to mainstream political conferences, Spencer’s event at the Reagan Building attracted a good deal of curiosity. The World may not have been watching, but those ruling it certainly were, paying close attention to this upstart movement that came out of nowhere and coincided with or harnessed the same energies as those that catapulted Trump to the presidency. A few years back, Spencer couldn’t have dreamed of an opportunity like this, and yet, here he was. It was his moment to lose. If he played his cards right, he could only go higher as a ‘statesman’ straddling between Alt Right inspiration and MAGA politics.
For the duration of the event, he seemed to be playing his cards right. Among the keynote speakers were controversial ideological peers, his elders Kevin MacDonald(whose specialty was the JQ) and Jared Taylor(who emphasized white interests in conflict with other groups, mostly blacks). There was also someone from Great Britain known on the internet as Millennial Woes. For all their differences, the guests were united in their appreciation of the seriousness of the moment. It was a real opportunity. They’d been shouting in the wilderness forever to no avail. Had Trump stayed out of the 2016 race, the alternative or dissident right would hardly have been the talk of the town. But, his campaign crossed paths with new youthful right, partly due to the enthusiasm generated by social media meme-ing and trolling, partly due to media hype(and paranoia) about Trump’s dark politics of nationalism(and maybe ‘racism’), and partly due to MAGA’s flirtation(but always short of partnership) with Alt Right elements.
Still, few had expected Trump to actually win the election, but he did, and the mainstream media were flustered and desperate for answers. What was the ‘dark formula’ that smuggled Trump into the Oval Office(other than Evil Putin of course)? Just how did a campaign that adopted the slogan of the Anti-Semite Charles Lindbergh — AMERICA FIRST — triumph? It was like Philip Roth’s wildest paranoid fantasy come to life. While some in the media were surely genuinely curious about the Alt Right and what it might reveal about the New Politics(as revealed by Trump), others probably saw in the Alt Right association a political opportunity, not unlike the hysteria about Trump-Putin collusion, i.e. not only did Trump take power with the aid of tyrant Putin of Neo-Imperial Russia but he was conspiring behind the scenes with Spencer and co. to carry out pogroms against the Jews.
For whatever reasons, the spotlight was on the Alt Right on account of Trump’s victory, and Richard Spencer found himself as one of the luckiest men in US political history. Fortunes like this are rarer than a once-in-a-lifetime-opportunity. Minus Trump’s entry into the 2016 race, Spencer would have been just another editor of a dissident right website, and the media wouldn’t have paid him any mind. (Around the same time, the media also began to discuss Steve Sailer as a possible mastermind behind MAGA, but lowkey Sailer remained inside his shell.)
Now, Trump turned out to be a pile of turd, but wittingly or not, he shook up American Politics, not only through demagogic rabble-rousing(about illegal aliens and the deep state ‘swamp’) but by provoking absolute hysteria and pandemonium on the other side. MAGA tremors created rifts within the political sphere for new voices and ideas to emerge. And even though it also led to heightened censorship and other draconian measures on part of the Power, such reactions also exposed the repressive anatomy of American Body Politic. It wasn’t exactly a ‘liberal democracy’. Worse, in order to win in 2020, the powers-that-be opted not only for more censorship but mass hysterics about a ‘deadly pandemic’ and ‘systemic racism’(that purportedly led to the crucifixion or cruci-asphyxiation of black christ George Floyd). 2020 was anarcho-tyranny writ large. The Power simultaneously sought total control & surveillance over the population and unleashed street chaos & mayhem across the country: Be sure to wear a face mask while lobbing a brick through a downtown business. Anarcho-Tyranny with its mask off.
But, we are getting ahead of ourselves. Back in 2016, the Establishment didn’t know what to make of Trump’s victory, and Spencer had a golden opportunity to convey views and ideas of relevance that had been suppressed by the mainstream media monopoly, which, on rare occasions of mentioning them, sunk to the usual adjective-laden invectives about their ‘odiousness’ or ‘toxicity’.
But on this occasion, the Establishment World wanted to know what forces had been churning beneath before erupting into the volcanic explosion of Trump’s victory.
Whatever one thinks of Taylor, MacDonald, Millennial Woes, and etc., they took the event seriously and offered respectable summations of their views. As Taylor explained, Diversity was an issue and accounted for MAGA’s white populist base. As MacDonald explained, there was the dawning of JQ, which explained why so many Jews were unnerved by Trump. Jewish hysteria suggested that Jewish Power had a vested interest in the status quo and feared any disruption caused by political populism. Millennial Woes, by his mere presence, embodied the spirit of the new youthful politics that developed on the internet independent of the controls of Conservatism Inc., whereas just about all pre-internet ‘conservative’ thought had been chaperoned and gatekept by well-funded organizations(that mostly took marching orders from the GOP and its counterparts in Europe).
Hail to Stupidity
To cap off the event, Spencer took the stage and expounded on Trumpism in the national and global contexts, one that balanced reason and passion. All seemed well, but his final words, as if on cue, activated a good number of attendees to stand up and give the ‘Sieg Heil’ salute. That single moment eclipsed all that had gone before and came to define the event, no doubt to the delight of Jews looking for any link between MAGA and Nazism.
If Spencer was after pranksterish notoriety, he got it in spades. It was like when Dustin Hoffman’s character tore away the gender-bending facade in TOOTSIE. Look, Spencer finally outed himself as a NAZI!!! Some may argue Spencer didn’t intend his toast, “Hail to Victory” , to set off a bunch of Neo-Nazis to go Heil-Hitler. But then, why were such types even in the audience, especially seated in the front row? The whole thing seemed orchestrated, and it surely ranks as one of the stupidest political stunts in US history, especially given Spencer’s role-of-a-lifetime opportunity to lead a viable movement.
They say first impressions matter a great deal; so do last impressions. It doesn’t matter if a guy takes a girl out to dinner and does everything right throughout the evening if, as the final gesture, the guy gets up on the table and blows a big fart; he’s only going to be remembered for Fartgate.
Likewise, everything Spencer did with the event went up in smoke as the mainstream media ran with headlines about ‘Heilgate’. You see, the Alt Right that’s aligned with Trump is really just a Hitler fanboy club. Unsurprisingly, MAGA declared it wanted nothing to do with the Alt Right. No doubt, Kevin MacDonald and Jared Taylor were appalled by Spencer’s fratboy antics. They must have felt used by an entitled upstart who, in abject failure to appreciate the chance of a lifetime, acted like a spoiled child hogging for attention by tossing a stink bomb into a classroom or shoving a frog down a lady’s dress.
As the Ecclesiastes says, there’s a time for everything. There’s a time to be loud and rowdy, like at a Halloween Party. There’s a time to be sober and mature, like when the world is watching(and looking for anything to smear you with). Spencer had his magic moment but abused it to cut the mother of all cheeses in modern politics. In a mere second, he managed to nearly undo all that had been achieved heretofore under his wing in the shadow of the 2016 election. Instead of being a team-player and responsible leader, Spencer opted for gangsta celebrity, or Alt Right’s equivalent of Paris Hilton(or Paris Hitler).
Spoiled, vain, narcissistic, bratty, snide, self-indulgent, as if he was the Hipster-Fuhrer of the Hour around whom the party would just go on forever, except that he was alienating many more who began to wonder about the viability of a movement led by an unstable man-child with sociopathic tendencies.
His preening self-regard even led to personal breakups as, reportedly anyway, he began to hump the girlfriends of his comrades. His marriage also broke apart for some reason, apparently because he tried to force his wife to sit through an all-night marathon of 007 movies, surely a torture worse than anything Blofeld could devise for Bond.
There was a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde dynamic about Spencer. There was Spencer the serious student of the right who did research under the venerable Paleo-Conservative Paul Gottfried(who may have first coined the term ‘alternative right’) and explored meaningful alternatives to the utterly corrupt and spineless Conservative Inc., someone who might also avoid the pratfalls of far-right or Neo-Nazi antics. But there was the other side of Spencer that could easily be intoxicated with egomania, build impossible castles in the air, and rush into things. He seemed to alternate, bi-polar like, between the extremes of self-aggrandizement that fueled boundless optimism and self-doubt that exacerbated his manic depression.
Between integrity and celebrity, Spencer went for the latter and began to act more and more like a James Bond impersonator in a Darth Vader costume. He failed to realize that his celebrity owed to the perception of his integrity, i.e. he wouldn’t take the thirty pieces of silver from the Establishment and be just another GOP flunky. But, integrity isn’t merely about refusing to sell out but having the sobriety to consolidate the foundations of a movement. A car has to be fully assembled with all the parts in the right places and all the joints screwed on tight before you take a drive. The Alt-Right mobile was still in the first phase of development, but Spencer decided to drive it like a Ferrari on the speedway. The end-result was unsurprising.
High on his own supply of megalomania, he alternated between increasing bouts of impatience and insecurity. At times, he was the superhero/super-villain Nietzsche Boy of the Hour ready to seize the moment… so, why wasn’t the world rolling out the red carpet for his ascendancy? At other times, eager to be invited on talk shows and podcasts as the diplomat of the Alt Right, he felt compelled to moderate his views for mass appeal and public consumption. Then, as if in total contempt for the hands he shook, he went back to fist-pumping, only to revert to hand-shaking mode again.
What was his role exactly in the movement? Its producer and executive, aka the suit? Its writer and director? Or its actor, the star and diva?
Well, we know how these things usually end up. Increasingly, like so many power-mad celebrities, Spencer surrounded himself with sycophants, yes-men, hangers-on, and second-rate flunkies who indulged his worst instincts. With all the drinking and partying, Alt Right was turning into Malt-Right, and it wasn’t long before a cartoon version of the Beerhall Putsch was in the offing. Spencer would soon become the worst version of his Doppelganger.
Heil-Gate, though damaging — talk about giving ammos to your enemies! — , was not a fatal blow to Spencer’s place in the game of politics. MAGA-types wanted nothing to do with him, and the more mature figures in the dissident right steered clear of him, but he still remained the most prominent figure of the Alt Right movement brimming with possibilities. He remained a player, was sought out for interviews(by mainstream media and popular podcasts), and was invited on college lecture tours. Had he played it smart, he could have recovered from the cut-the-cheese moment and set the movement back on course.
However, there was a fatal flaw in Spencer’s ideological worldview. His brand of rightism was essentially based on nihilist-imperialism than humanist-nationalism. It was a combination of retro-British-Imperialist nostalgia/hubris and excessive identification with Darth Vader(and 007 movie supervillains). It was as if he had an epiphany where Lord Vader appeared before him and said, “I am your father.” Or, in one of his delirious binge-watching of 007 movies, he realized the villains were actually cooler than Bond who, for all his style and glamour, was but a flunky of the Establishment. Why not root for the villain for whom the world is not enough? Even though Spencer’s inner-circle included certain Neo-, Quasi-, and Crypto-Nazi types, he was less a Hitler-fan than a cartoonizer of Nietzsche and the modern-romantic German ideological tradition. As such, humanism was too tame for him, and nationalism too petty. Nihilism murmured into his years that power could be limitless, and such a power is inherently imperialist.
Spencer threw caution to the winds like a cocky cowboy ready to take on the biggest bull at the rodeo. Perhaps, the ‘punch-the-nazi’ incident and the widespread mockery, far from alerting him of dangers ahead, motivated him to go faster and harder, if only as compensation for the public humiliation. He would show everyone what he’s really made of! The preppy ubermensch ready to ride the whirlwind.
Spencer seriously misread the tea leaves. His movement was ill-prepared for the daring stunt that would be his undoing. Who did Spencer think he was? Alexander the Great? When Alexander embarked on world conquest, at least he’d inherited a formidable army from his father. When the putsch failed for Hitler at Munich, at least he could rely on sympathetic judges and affluent conservative elements. When Netanyahu failed to destroy Iran, he had the backing of the US as the lone superpower and lots of nukes. Even Germany and Japan, in their disastrous war-making in World War II, at least possessed sizable militaries and had won some key victories before embarking on zero-sum winner-takes-all conflicts.
In contrast, Spencer’s Alt Right movement had no backup and nothing to fall back on. It was still in the first stage of its existence, a mere cub, far from an adult bear or tiger. What would happen to a cub if it took on a moose or bison?
If Spencer went down this time, he was going to stay down.
While some in the mainstream media and establishment institutions had tolerated and even indulged him, they could just as easily have ‘canceled’ him into a loser and non-entity. And he gave them an excuse to do so on a silver platter.
Now, it needs to be said that the main reason why Charlottesville turned into a fiasco was due to Jewish Power and shabbos goy collaboration. Whatever one thinks of Spencer and his allies, they followed all the rules and secured every permit to put on a protest-rally. If anything, they’d taken precautions beyond anything done by ‘progressive’ groups, black groups, homosexual groups, and the like who, if anything, were generally tolerated by the authorities even if they carried out acts of violence and vandalism. There had been many Antifa rages across the country, but the arrestees usually got a slap on the wrist. More often than not, Jewish groups provided lawfare protection, and over time, a symbiotic relation developed between Jewish-Zionist capitalists and Antifa junkie-‘communists’, whereby radical street mob types would usually target
‘white supremacists’ and ‘far right’ elements while sparing the Zionists, LGBTQ community, and even Big Money. While Antifa violence first erupted in a big way against globalist capitalism, over the years the Big Money had directed its energies elsewhere, just like Jewish Power redirected radical Muslim violence toward the enemies of Israel. (There’s blowback but there’s also turn-back.)
Spencer, despite the risk-taking, knew well-enough that the Power was fearful of his movement reaching a critical mass. So, he played it cautious by securing all the rights and permits. Indeed, even the ACLU was consulted to defend the event on grounds of free speech, and it reluctantly sided with Spencer.
Had the authorities respected the rules of a liberal democracy(what the US purports to be), the rally would have taken place as planned, and the participants would have peacefully disassembled, and that would have been that.
But, the Jewish powers-that-be, fearing that it might be the match that sets White Power Politics on fire, cooked up a plan to turn a potential triumph into a trap. And Spencer fell right into it. As a cavalry officer in the Wild West, Spencer would have outdone General Custer. He just didn’t see the angles. And he failed to appreciate how much the American South had changed.
The trap was set on several levels. The police, taking orders from above, would suddenly shut down the event. They would then push the attendees into the mob of ‘leftist’ anti-protestors. A street battle would ensue where Alt Right types would be outnumbered and overwhelmed. The police would go hard on Alt Right types while treating the other side with kid gloves. The media, local and national, would blame the Alt Right for the ruckus.
Of course, there were other tricks as well, like using feds to carry around Nazi swastika flags, but then foolish Spencer had the given green light to Neo-Nazism with Heil-Gate.
The event would be spun as White Supremacist KKK-Nazis versus the Moral Army. Trump would be blamed via guilt-by-association and then further attacked for saying there were good people on both sides. Even though most of the police and the anti-protestors were white(like the members of the Alt Right), they’d either been turned ‘left’ or ‘white-self-loathing’ under Jewish influence or had to follow orders from above, the shabbos goyim servile to Jewish Power.
Soon, lawsuits would follow based on one trumped up charge after another. And if Spencer and his side sought legal redress over the violations of their first amendment rights of speech and freedom of assembly, the law firms and courts would deny their requests. And having been utterly disgraced by the mainstream media in the eyes of the world, Spencer’s Alt Right would see donations dry up, made worse by payment systems denying services to his organization.
Technically speaking, Spencer had done everything right, and the Judeocentric Power pulled every dirty trick in the book to derail the event to further justify the destruction of the Alt Right. Jewish Power’s dirty and even desperate actions exposed the bogus conceit of the US as a ‘liberal democracy’ built on Constitutional principles, but then, as any libertarian can tell you, the US government has been waging wars without Congressional approval forever. And the Supreme Court just made up stuff to justify the mandatory legalization of ‘gay marriage’ across all fifty states.
In other words, to any keen observer, no one should operate in the US on the basis of the Rule of Law. Free speech is fine for the powerless if they choose to remain powerless, but any real challenge to the Power will be met with stiff resistance. Take the BDS movement and activists who oppose Zionist crimes. Even if they protest the violations of their constitutional rights with lawsuits, it is time-consuming and expensive. And by the time they win in court, another road block is placed before them.
Thus, in the realms of power and consequence, the only speech that matters in the US is paid speech. Even with the Constitution on your side, you have to hire lawyers to fight for your rights, and there’s no guarantee that law firms will take up your case. Abby Martin, for example, had to sue the state of Georgia for her right to condemn the Zionist oppression of the Palestinians at college campuses, but even after she won, new obstacles were placed before her.
Based strictly on the law, the blame for the Charlottesville disaster must go to the authorities who took marching orders from the Jewish ruling elites. In a perfect world, they should have been sued out of existence and even imprisoned for their violations of Constitutional guarantees.
But, we don’t live in a perfect world but in the real one where power always trumps principles. Take the GOP teeming with so-called ‘principled conservatives’ who do little but grovel at the feet of AIPAC. Look at MAGA that ran on a nationalist agenda but does more to appease the globalist-supremacist ambitions of Zion.
The depressing thing about Spencer is that he must have known all of this as he’d opined about the political philosophy of Carl Schmitt, i.e. that power has its own logic and imperative. He also discussed the nature of Jewish Power and the basic corruption of the American system. He surely knew of the compromised nature of the media, mostly owned and/or run by the Jews. If anything, he often ridiculed the libertarians for their utopian hopes and dreams of a world governed by the principles of individual liberty.
And yet, he charged into the enemy territory of Charlottesville thinking that his Constitutional rights would be iron-clad. By the way, if he was going to take a risk on that scale, wouldn’t it have been wiser to organize around a more moderate message? Indeed, the rally as a protest against the destruction of Confederate monuments had validity and a certain resonance among Southerners.
But, Spencer went much further, agitating elements of the far-right to join him for a reckoning, though for what was anybody’s guess.
On the evening prior to the event, he had men marching in a torch-lit parade reminiscent of Nazi rallies. It must have been devilish fun to trigger the sensibilities of the Establishment, the Jews, and the progressives, but it was also playing with fire(and indeed the powers-that-be had already set the trap while Spencer, drunk from the adulation of his nearest admirers, thought he had the world in the palm of his hand).
So, while Spencer was technically on firm ground, he was strategically walking into quicksand. If John F. Kennedy the President of the United States of America could be taken out by a conspiracy, imagine what the power could do to an incipient movement. To use a pop cultural reference, Yoda warned Luke Skywalker not to confront Darth Vader until he was fully trained and ready in THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK. Alas and LOL, it’s hard to sympathize with someone who roots for Vader and the Emperor in STAR WARS.
Worse, Spencer’s chosen allies for the Unite the Right rally at Charlottesville was a freakshow, a theater of the absurd, something unknown to many at the time. Among the featured speakers was Chris Cantwell the cantaloupe-head, an emotionally disturbed crybaby draped in Nazi symbols who would soon go squealing to the feds. Another was Matt Heimbach who claimed to stand up for the white working class; he turned out to be a stupid fatfuc* drunk on Neo-Nazi ale. (He would later become embroiled in ‘The Night of the Wrong Wives’ where he bedded the wife of his father-in-law and then beat up the father-in-law. A total pig.) Mike Enoch had a knack for trollish commentary at his site The Daily Shoah(or TDS) but lacked a serious bone in his body. Others weren’t very impressive either. There was also ‘Baked Alaska’, a nice guy but a goofball. The sorry roster went against the spirit of uniting-the-right as it alienated much of the right, even the dissident right, as the event was more a purity-spiral of far-right radicalism than a broad appeal for patriotic unity under a big tent.
Thus, Spencer and co. gave ample ammunition to the other side to portray them as nutjobs, cranks, extremists, fanatics, and lunatics. Sad to say, Spencer really did manage to bring out some of the nuttiest personalities of the Right out of the woodworks. If some Jewish Hollywood writer wanted to mock the Alt Right as a crusade of mentally challenged idiots, he couldn’t have done better than Spencer. It was his game to lose. Fortune had smiled upon him and offered him an opportunity to shape a new movement on the right. He could have been its guide, leading with intelligence, insight, and sound strategy. Instead, like the foolish Chinese with magical thinking in the Boxer Rebellion, his bunch decided to storm the machine gun nest of the enemy.
When the Unite the Right rally at Charlottesville seemed the dawning of something momentous and great, Spencer sought to own the event as its leading spokesman and organizer. But when the whole thing crashed and burned, it revealed another side of him, one with zero sense of accountability. The blame was dumped mostly on Jason Kessler, and what soon ensued was mutual finger-pointing, or as kids in the playground say, “He made me do it.” As with the vomit incident in his first meeting with Taki Theodoracopulos, Spencer accepted no responsibility.
His group hardly made any attempt to defend James Field who got railroaded for murder and received multiple life sentences. In the melee and panic, he floored the accelerator, and his car crashed into a crazed mob hurling insults and objects at him, and one fat woman died. At most, he should have been charged with manslaughter, but he was condemned forever on account of his ideology, supposedly ‘white supremacist’ and ‘Neo-Nazi’.
That’s how the power works in the West. Far-right Netanyahu comes and goes any time he wants and gives marching orders to US cuck-politicians while he carries out a genocide in Gaza and rampages across Syria. He does a sneak-attack on Iran and murders politicians and scientists(and their entire families), but he has the full support of the Oval Office, the CIA, NSA, FBI, the Pentagon, and most of the media. But, some stupid kid at a rally panicked and accidentally killed one person, and he’s locked up for good. That is American ‘democracy’.
Yet, no one mentions James Fields who is rotting in prison, who may have been buggered in the arse numerous times by black inmates. Fields and others like him were drawn to the event by the organizers, but the latter only cared about saving their own skin. Some ‘unite the right’. When push came to shove, people like Spencer were more libertarian in the ‘me and only me’ mentality. One wonders, are they at least sending the poor kid some care packages?
While the powers-that-be around Big Tech and financial institutions were already devising ways to censor voices and deny crucial services in the aftermath of Trump’s victory, the whole process was hastened after Charlottesville. The new measures went far beyond the Patriot Act in spreading hysteria and panic. Apparently, to save ‘democracy’ and ‘the republic’, extraordinary measures were justified. And of course, the Power could just make up stuff, like the Russia Collusion Hoax that dogged Trump for four years. If the powers-that-be could transmogrify a thug-loser-turd like George Floyd into a Magic Negro holier than jesus, what couldn’t they do?
It’s the same power that convinced much of the Western World that it’s been defending democracy in Ukraine, despite the CIA-Neocon coup in 2014, the alliance with Nazi-esque elements, and Zelensky’s continued rule without elections. The Power also tells us Israel is defending itself after it carried out an attack far worse and more dastardly than what Japan pulled on Pearl Harbor. The Power doesn’t care about reality, only about shaping perceptions to further its own dominance.
That said, there were some positive outcomes from Charlottesville and the implosion of the Alt Right. As a stress test, it revealed what the powers-that-be were truly capable of and how far they were willing to go. It exposed the hollowness of Constitutional protections. The Power won but also exposed itself as tyrannical and hypocritical. The illusion of democracy was gone once and for all.
It also emboldened the Power to overplay its cards in 2020, which turned out to be a Pyrrhic Victory. If the Power did manage to convince much of populist MAGA that Spencer and Alt Right represented an extremism that must be rejected, the triple whammy of BLM pogroms, Covid lockdowns, and coordinated election irregularities(that anointed Biden as president) made virtually all Conservatives lost faith in the system. Right-of-center people came to disbelieve the GOP establishment as weak, corrupt, and compromised, and pay more attention to alternative sources of news and information. Even though the January 6 Capitol Riot was also a fiasco and a defeat, indeed a much bigger one than Charlottesville, it was too broad in passion and participation to be written off as an extremist act, and Trump would hardly suffer as a result when he ran four years later.
Also, the suppression of the ‘far right’(followed by Trump’s defeat in 2020) made the progressive, leftist, and ‘woke’ types obsess less about the specter of ‘white supremacism’ and focus more on other issues. And, despite all the ‘woke’ Negrolatry via the state, media, and academia, the BLM riots and related agitations had taken their toll even in the bluest areas. In the supposed war on ‘systemic racism’, the powers-that-be inadvertently allowed thugs to run wild and rendered many urban areas unlivable. Even if many ‘blue state’ people didn’t turn ‘red’, they began to lose enthusiasm for the ideological hysterics on their side.
But the real bunker-buster for the Democrats was the Gaza Horror, truly one of the few progressive causes that rose from the grassroots in genuine opposition to the agenda from above. Many progressives were outraged by the horror, but the powers-that-be lost the script for another reason as well.
The ‘woke’ mobs always need new coals to be added to their fire of moral outrage. GloboHomo, Negrolatry, and ‘Climate Change’ having run their course, the new thrill of the moment was Save-the-Palestinians. For the first time in a long long while, the powers-that-be were taken aback by progressive passions not of their own making. It was the biggest Black Swan event for the Democrats and may well have tipped the scale in favor of Trump.
But then, the new Trump turned out to be useful to the Power, mostly Jewish of course. With the Democratic Establishment challenged by the base that decisively favors the Palestinians over Likud-run Israel, the Power decided it was easier, at least this time around, to use Trump to do the bidding of Netanyahu.
Broadly speaking, another advantage for the Right in the implosion of Spencer’s Alt Right was the decentralization and guerrilla-ization of dissident right voices. With Spencer hogging the spotlight from 2016 to 2017, not least due to media focus on his movement, the meaning of the Alt Right was more or less defined by Spencer and his circle. But with them out of the picture, what soon followed was a ‘liberalization’ of alt-rightist memes in various corners of the internet.
The Power could easily crush a movement and organization, but it was a game of whack-a-mole with the incessant spread of ‘memes’ that, with a mere image or clever phrase or two, exposed the utter BS of the official narrative.
Among the youth scrolling through their smart phones, these memes were highly effective in chipping away at the Overton Window. In time, those who’d despaired that Spencer had sunk the entire dissident right boat learned to just move on and forgot about him as a has-been, a loser, an irritant and pest, a person of no further relevance. In other words, he turned out to be more an hindrance to than a facilitator of trends that were all but inevitable.
Whether the Right ultimately triumphs or not, politically incorrect ideas and views were going to spread far and wide given the nature of the internet(and even with increased censorship).
And if Jewish Power thought the ‘far right’ or Alt Right was its biggest potential nemesis, it found out otherwise as its own pets began to turn against it on account of Neocon foreign policy and its excesses. Back in 2016, it was inconceivable that Tucker Carlson and Megan Kelly would be naming the names they’re naming. And no one of prominence would have dared to express what Marjorie Taylor Green is doing routinely these days. Even those on the Left routinely talk about ‘Jewish Supremacism’, once a term used almost solely by David Duke. The JQ has become part of the discourse.
What advantage did the Palestinian movement have over Spencer’s Alt Right? Its nationalism has been humanist and anti-supremacist against the supremacist-imperialism of Zionism. Spencer’s Alt Right failed for the same reason National Socialism did. It challenged Jewish Supremacism-Imperialism not with white humanism-nationalism but with counter-supremacism, which Jews exploited as a distraction from their own supremacism.
Ultimately, Spencer was unsuited for the historical moment because his talents lacked the firm foundations of character, morality, and sense of reality(or limitations). The lack of character meant little in the way of accountability. If anything went wrong, he bore no personal responsibility and either dumped the blame on others or learned nothing from the mistake. Morality was of no relevance to someone immersed in nihilism as the base of his neo-imperialist worldview. If, at times, Spencer seemed to counter or condemn the Neocon foreign policy or globalism in general, it was because Jews were in charge. As such, he didn’t so much oppose supremacism and imperialism per se as oppose the humiliation of whites serving the Jews.
Spencer seemed oblivious to the fact that imperialism had run its course in integrating the entire world for better or worse. It had done much good as well as bad for humanity and the world that, following World War II and the post-war anti-imperialist struggles, settled on the consensus of universal national sovereignty, a principle broadened by the fall of the Soviet Union and the restoration of independent republics(formerly of the USSR) or sovereign nations(such as Poland and Hungary, once satellite nations). But then, the whole momentum was tragically undermined by American hubris as the lone superpower, NATO expansion, and Zionist-Neocon hegemonism.
Contrary to realists like John Mearsheimer and neo-imperialists like Richard Spencer, it is NOT in the DNA of every great power to seek hegemony and domination over its neighbors. Post-Cold War Russia was more than willing to let bygones be bygones and work as partners with its neighbors, but it was forced into playing a defensive-imperialist role in places like Georgia and Ukraine because the Jewish-run West kept prodding for weak spots to attack. China wants nothing more than more business relations with its neighbors and the world — it hasn’t even reclaimed Taiwan yet despite the world community recognizing it as part of China. If China is forced into military confrontation, it will be the result of the USA, now cancerous in its hubris, using its pawns and puppets(like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, still a political vassal of the US) to keep provoking the Asian colossus.
Even if Mearsheimer is wrong, at least he argues in favor of empire as a necessary realpolitik bulwark against other would-be great powers(that invariably turn into hegemons). With neo-imperialists like Richard Spencer(and the Jewish Neocons), however, it’s all about the thrill of domination, power-lust, supremacism, and master-of-the-universe gamesmanship.
As such, Spencer’s Alt Right never presented a compelling moral argument against Neocon imperialism, globalist hegemony, and US military hubris. He was for empire and supremacism but controlled by whites(especially Anglos and Germanics) than by Jews. As such, Jews, though supremacists themselves, could easily smear Spencer and his ilk as White Supremacists and deflect attention from their own supremacism… though Netanyahu’s excesses made more and more people take notice, indeed to the point where the majority of Democratic voters now sympathize more with Palestinians than with Likudnik Israelis.
Finally, with a sensibility molded by pop culture, much like the ‘woke’ crowd and Negroes who went wild over the Wakanda fantasies of BLACK PANTHER, Spencer faced reality as if it were a Batman-Bond-Vader movie.
In addition, his privileged upbringing seems to have instilled a sense of entitlement. The kind of kid who got all the toys and then got some more when he carelessly broke them. Thus, his ubermensch conceits were little more than preppie fantasies. Spencer remains deluded. He thinks mannequin-man Emanuel Macron is like a divine Jupiter-figure.
Spencer’s political venture turned into a total disaster, but he could have salvaged something from the experience. He could have faced the music and took substantial(if not full) responsibility for what happened, especially at Charlottesville. But no. He could have cleaned up his act and reset the movement with sober analysis and reappraisal. No again.
Or, at the very least, he could have admitted defeat and graciously bowed out from the scene and focused on legal issues.
Instead, he hung around, making one ridiculous comment after another. Or finding some ‘liberal’ girlfriend and taking a photo with her in front of a giant GloboHomo flag, as if to signal to the Jews that he’s reformed, so please don’t lock him up with the Negroes who might ram his arse.
That Spencer came around to seeing the Orange Man for what he really is, a charlatan pile of turd, was to his credit. But, the idea of supporting Joe Biden and then Kamala Harris as antidotes to Trump… what was that? Most likely, Spencer being too clever by half.
By railing against Trump and MAGA, he was offloading the blame and accusing anyone and anything but himself for the disaster. “Trump made me do it.” One thing Spencer has in common with the Jewish Neocons is the total lack of honor, whereby whatever goes wrong is never his fault. The difference is that the Neocons keep rising despite their disasters(as they’re the ‘made men’ of US power), whereas it was three-strikes-you’re-out for Spencer whose Anglo ilk in the West has been allotted to play the role of cucks to Zion.
In a way, I get it, and we all get it, because it affects us all. It’s the stubborn egotism of pride, something no one is immune to. While false humility is dime-a-dozen, true humility is a rare thing as one’s contrition must be real and in earnest. Few dialogues in movies ring as true as these from THE WILD BUNCH:
Pike: “There was a man named Harrigan. Used to have a way of doing things. I made him change his ways. A hell of a lot of people, Dutch, just can’t stand to be wrong.”
Dutch: “Pride.”
Pike: “And they can’t forget it… that pride… being wrong. Or learn by it.”
Dutch: “How about us, Pike? You reckon we learned – being wrong, today?”
Pike: “I sure hope to God we did.”
Just like the outlaws in the opening scene of Sam Peckinpah’s Western, the Alt Right guys were lured into a trap. Charlottesville was a disaster, but then, every disaster comes with a silver lining as a teachable moment. It also tests one’s character as handling defeat is a greater hurdle than savoring victory. While Spencer could be faulted for many things, such as the stupidity of aligning with Neo-Nazi types and being overly reckless, it took some real courage and vision, however ill-focused, to march into an event like that. Even in defeat, he could have claimed the badge of courage, like an American Indian brave who met his doom but as a warrior. That element of courage was the one thing that seemed unassailable and couldn’t be taken from him. For it to stick, however, he had to take full responsibility, but his evasions cost him even that bit of manly honor.
But then, tougher men have been broken by less, and Spencer is man, not superman. Still, if one succumbs to pressure, why not just go away and stop the pretense of mattering in the game?
With Spencer, it’s been blame everything but himself, even if it means endorsing Sleepy Joe and Cackling Kamala as spiteful affronts to Trump and MAGA. But the world saw right through him. Unsurprisingly, everyone on the Left remained contemptuous of the New Spencer, and everyone on the Right was disgusted with his scaredy-cat preppie antics. The Jews were no doubt amused that he’d been broken and neutered, reduced to a eunuch who hides his cowardice with contrarian announcements meant to create the impression of a 5D chess mindset when it’s just Old Maid.
Perhaps, if he’s able to face up to reality one day, he could write a book on how and why he was handed the pearls of a lifetime but threw them to pigs. But, I wouldn’t bet on it. He just threw it all away.
ADDENDUM – A few notes on Spencer’s Faustian Obsession:
How valid is the Faustian theory of the West? Hasn’t it been retrofitted to the Western Narrative to romanticize the triumphs? Few if any must have been conscious of what they were doing in ‘Faustian’ terms. More likely, upon reflecting on the unprecedented nature of their achievements, they lent it a sense of inevitability as self-aggrandizement.
As such, this Faustian thing seems more a bug than a feature of cultures and civilizations. It comes and goes, and it’s often more a rationalization(of the supposedly preordained moment of glory) than a reasoned analysis. Not that the theory is necessarily false, but few things are inevitable in history.
Spencer believes only the Western Man has the will to conquer the world and push beyond boundaries. Jews don’t have it. Yet, Jews created a religion that conquered the souls of humanity, with Christianity and Islam being outgrowths of Judaism. In some ways, isn’t conquering souls a greater feat than conquering soil? In this, the Hindus also have an edge over whites, a consideration that may explain the Jew-Hindu partnership. Both Jews and Hindus can prophesize their own gods, their own ideas of the sacred, whereas white paganism wilted under the heat of Jewish spiritual power. Semitic messianism lorded over Aryan Faustianism. After all, whites conquered much in the name of Jesus, meaning that Jewish spirituality was often the leading light for white warriors and explorers. Venturing into strange and unfamiliar territories, whites clung to something for equilibrium, stability, and comfort, and it was invariably the Bible, the Jewish Holy Text.
When we compare the Ancient Greeks with the Ancient Hebrews, the former mastered the science of the actual whereas the latter mastered the art of the holy. The Bible doesn’t provide reasoned arguments as to why God is true and why His way is the right way. What it does, however, is to convey His supremeness, holiness, goodness, & eternal wisdom and how comforting it is to be in His grace. Perhaps, it would be preferable for humanity to favor science and logic over spirituality and sanctity, but people find meaning more from warmth of feelings than coldness of facts. Jewish spiritual imagination mastered the art of soulful capture.
Contra Spencer’s conceits, in the modern era it seems Jews have an over-surplus of this Faustian will to take over and dominate all. How can anything be more ‘Faustian’ than making the atomic bomb at breakneck speed? And Jewish imperialist hubris is now such that whites are in awe and groveling at the feet of Zion as the true master of the universe.
At any rate, it’s easy to dream up stuff, as any kid dreams about flying over clouds and traveling through stars(like in BUCK ROGERS or STAR WARS). The actual work that goes into the realization is long and arduous, made up of contributions of sober minds who aren’t exactly Faustian crackpots rhapsodizing about galactic conquest. Germans and the Japanese had quasi-mythic, almost fantastical, dreams of triumph in World War II, but no amount of vision-and-dreaming could overcome the reality of manpower and materials. Granted, it’s worth noting that Hitler(and the Japanese as well) were driven as much by anxiety as ambition. Contrary to popular opinion, Hitler’s motive wasn’t to conquer the world but to secure the future of Germany as a great power. Germans had industry but lacked land and resources, which the USSR and the US had in abundance. So, in his mind, the conquest of Russia was ‘existential’ IF Germany were to remain a truly great power. In that sense, Hitler’s gamble wasn’t so much ‘Faustian’ as ‘securian’, more to secure German power than to own the world.
Spencer’s formulation also overlooks the intricacy of the Jewish-White cooperation. Western Imperialism was interwoven with Jewish finance. Voyages of discovery and wars of conquest were forbiddingly complex and expensive operations. They didn’t spring forth from some Faustian delirium.
More often than not, they were driven by profit motive, bound with loyalty, and carefully executed. Captain Blighs, not Fletcher Christians, were the key to success. Jews played an instrumental role in providing capital for many Western ventures, thus complicating the Western narrative in terms of credit(and blame) for the history of imperialism. Western triumphs were the gradual culmination of planning and patience, not of some Faustian leaps into the unknown like in the movies. The ancient Greeks for one knew the dangers of hubris and over-reaching in stories like that of Icarus.
True, there were visionaries to be sure, but they were few and far between, hardly the norm among the white race. At any rate, the success of any complex venture or enterprise requires the many who diligently and patiently do their ‘petty’ and ‘humble’ jobs. Napoleon once mocked the English as a nation of shopkeepers, too petty-bourgeois for French taste, but all those humdrum shopkeepers and the like kept society going, provides goods and services, and paid taxes. They constituted the unsung backbone of society.
Thus, the rise of Britain owed less to the brash dreams of the few than to the diligent contributions of the many, like in the story of the grasshopper and the ant. Through diligence and patience, they built a stable and disciplined society that balanced liberty with order, individuality with community, reason with tradition. It was that very base of stability and reliability that afforded the rare deviation from norm, as with eccentrics like T. E. Lawrence.
Had the Brits at the very start been intoxicated with Faustianism like Spencer, their fate would have been that of the Alt Right at Charlottesville. Instead, the Brits usually went for small but sure gains than zero-sum wagers.
The Faustian notion of history implies that impatience is the key to ambition, i.e. the Faustian Man, burning with pent-up energy to conquer and rule, rushes at the chance. But, most of Western progress came by way of cooler heads
If anything, the failure of overarching Faustian projects may have been the advantage for Europe. If the Faustian will-to-power is about conquering and uniting all under heaven, that was more the case of the Ottoman Empire, the Chinese empire, the Persian empire, and etc.
In contrast, Europe refused to come under a single authority except for short spells, such as the Napoleonic Era and the Hitlerian Moment. No great Genghis-Khan-like figure conquered and ruled all of Europe for a prolonged period.
Yet, this fragmentation could be a catalyst for competition among various states to remain viable as a power. Spencer’s dream is for Europe to be united by some Faustian Caesarian emperor, a kind of Jupiter(like Emmanuel Macron, ROTFL), but had all of Europe been ruled from a single center like Rome, would its history have been so action-packed? The Byzantine Empire lasted for much longer than the Western Roman empire, but did the fragmented West or the unified East(under Constantinople) make more progress?
Contra Spencer’s assumptions, one could argue that the political fragmentation or the ‘petty nationalism’ of Europe was an expression of the Faustian spirit, i.e. whereas the civilizations of the Rest more readily submitted to central authority across vast areas, the Western Man’s defiance refused to renounce his sovereignty to the proverbial Rome. But then, it only applies to the caste of warrior-princes as most people were downtrodden peasants under feudalism.
The problem with the Faustian theory of the West is that, if true, it should be plainly evident in all white societies at all times and manifesting endlessly as the quintessential expression of ‘Aryan’-ness. Yet, it hasn’t been so. The Ancient Greeks, so creative and inspired long ago, sure fell into a funk that seems to last forever. At one time, the Italian peninsula was a joke, a backwater, and no one imagined it would be the base of the greatest empire of the ancient world. Whatever the case, it’s highly doubtful that the proto-Romans woke up one day with a Faustian dream and embarked upon conquest. Rather, they did some things right, which added to their security and wealth, allowing for more power, which gradually fueled greater ambition, and then a momentum began to build toward empire.
Now, if this Faustian thing is innate in the white or ‘Aryan’ soul, it should never have left the Romans. But over time, the Romans just grew fat and lazy, and their empire collapsed, and the people of Italy have never constituted a great power again. Benito Mussolini strutted his quasi-‘Faustian’ stuff, but style isn’t substance, and the Italians were pathetic in World War II.
Instead of some innate spirit stirring within a people, it’s more likely that a spirit moves from culture to culture, creating sparks that light up new possibilities before migrating elsewhere, sort of like the Olympic torch. The Greeks once had it, and so did the Romans. Later, it passed to the Germanic peoples. Russia, once long regarded as a hopeless basket case of tradition, shockingly became the center of world revolution after World War I. Anglos were once nobodies in some godforsaken island. But then, they seemed unstoppable, the greatest empire builders in the world. Today, they’re among the most pathetic and useless people.
For all the imperial grandeur, so much of Anglo might have derived from ‘petite bourgeois’ elements as the foundation of the empire. We love the idea of the hero who does it all, like in Western movies where the fast gun settles everything. But the real West wasn’t just about cowboys and gunslingers but the farmers, laborers, shop keepers, blacksmiths, artisans, clerks, and countless others who made the towns possible. Philip Kaufman’s THE RIGHT STUFF contrasts the publicity of idol-worship centered on hero-astronauts with the unglamorous reality of the countless technical details that go into the space program. We naturally prefer to focus on the stars than on the behind-the-curtains stagecraft.
The great big thing is made up of many good little things, something Mao Zedong forgot when he proclaimed the Great Leap Forward, as if revolutionary mania on a massive scale could alone transform China from an agricultural country to an industrial powerhouse. Talk about Faustian lunacy with Chinese characteristics. In fact, the industrial rise of China after the Chairman’s death was the result of the state allowing ‘little people’ to do their ‘little’ things that added up in a real big way.
There’s a contradiction between the Faustian theory of Western Power and the cold reality of Western progress. The West advanced over the Rest not because great ubermensch leaders emerged one after another to extol the populace to chase after one great feat after another. If that’s how it works, the Roman Empire would have only known triumphs with its various Caesars. The trick wasn’t getting the people all worked up and impassioned about some great destiny. Rather, it was allowing space for rational people to quietly present their arguments for consideration and allowing various profit-seekers to try to invent or improve things. It was those ‘quiet moves’ than loud gestures that made the difference. STAR WARS wasn’t made by Darth Vader but by shy and soft-spoken George Lucas who certainly had a dream but also the due diligence to keep grinding away at his project, but impatient diva Spencer wouldn’t know anything about such quieter attributes. Ironically however, Spencer was at his best with logical critique and careful examination of issues, betraying the character flaw of blindness to one’s virtues in pursuit of megalomaniacal vice.
In any case, the will to conquer and dominate isn’t necessarily ‘Faustian’ but organic, or biological. All species seek to propagate as far and wide as possible. Invasion and conquest have defined mankind from the beginning, culminating in empire-building. After all, mankind made it from Africa to Europe and Asia and then even to the Americas long before the first civilizations emerged. Every continent has had its more aggressive and conquest-driven types. Aryans, Semites, and Turks were all very aggressive peoples. The Bantus learned to smelt iron and form relatively complex organizations that enabled them to spread out across vast Africa, often at the expense of other Sub-Saharan African types, such as the Khoisan. Zulus used spears but were empire-builders par excellence. While China built walls, Mongols went wild for a prolonged period and demolished everything in their path. A fragmented nomadic people, once they got their act together, they seemed unstoppable. But again, nothing lasts forever. Was a kind of Faustian spirit animating the Mongols? If so, where did it go? A spark lit the fire, but the fire has long since expired. The imperial urge has been universal, in varying scales to be sure.
Only in the late modern era did imperialism become associated mostly with the West due to the mastery of the seas and, at least for a time, a seemingly insurmountable advantage in technology. Thus, the false dichotomy of the Imperialist West and Exploited Rest emerged. Upon closer scrutiny, the Rest was also defined by empire, e.g. the Manchus ruled over China, the Mughals ruled over India. And when the Spanish arrived in the New World, various empires, such as the Aztecs, were vying for power, that is until they fell ill with the spread of Old World diseases.
In fact, however, only a handful of European nations were far ahead in industry and technology, and even fewer gained substantial overseas colonies, the top three being Spain/Portugal, France, and Britain, and to a lesser extent the Dutch. Also, many Europeans themselves were under imperialist and/or colonial rule, like the Poles under the Russian Empire and like the various Balkan peoples under the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The rise of modern Germany proved that nationalism had an advantage over imperialism, at least in unity of identity and purpose. Prussia’s objective of unifying the Germanic peoples won out over the Austro-Hungarian Empire premised on the Germanics, 20% of the population, ruling over the 80% who weren’t Germanic, a source of tension and instability(that would lead to World War I).
Anyway, because of the narrative of the Imperialist West vs the Victim Rest, people often overlook the fact that many Europeans themselves were under imperialist rule, e.g. Poland re-emerged as an independent nation only after World War I, and that much of the Rest also operated within imperialist structures. (Besides, Europe itself had been threatened with Moorish, Turkish, and Mongol invasions time and time again.) Actually, the new idea that the West brought to the Rest was modern nationalism, not imperialism, an all-too-familiar phenomenon all over the world. What really transformed the Rest was the nationalist ideal(derived mainly from the French Revolution and not to be confused with timeless tribalism) that the people define the nation and that leaders exist to serve the people, not vice versa. That factor, not imperialism, was revolutionary, though the increased power it bestowed upon a people could serve as the basis of empire-building, ironically both impinging on the territories of other peoples and awakening the peoples to the nationalist ideal that had greatly expanded the power of the invading party. No wonder then that, even as Indians and others expelled the Western Imperialists, they adopted the western national model of political organization.
Even though industrial/technological advantage gave the West a decisive edge against the Rest, it’s likely that the geographic luck of North America and Australia, along with Siberia for Russia, greatly exaggerated the inevitable sense of white dominance. If the New World never existed, the West with its technological advantage, might have pushed the Rest around but only to an extent, as, after all, the West simply couldn’t hold onto Asia and the Near East forever. There were too many darkies there, and besides, it was only a matter of time before they too learned the technology and built modern societies. As such, the exploitation of the Rest couldn’t last forever. In contrast, Russia could hold onto Siberia forever. Vast and mostly empty, it was no great feat for Russia to claim and ‘conquer’.
As for North America and Australia, they were sparsely inhabited by stone-age peoples. Especially North America, the best real estate in the world, was just there for the picking. It was the greatest geo-political luck in history that the Anglos landed on Plymouth Rock. Had North America been heavily populated like India or China, with the native folks being disease-resistant, white rule would have eventually faded as it did across the non-white parts of the Old World. But there it was, ripe for the taking. But this was more luck than anything else. Perhaps, Sub-Saharan Africa, with its vast empty spaces and mostly primitive folks, could likewise have been tamed, but the effort was too little too late given its deadly diseases to outsiders(and the remarkable disease-resistance of the native populations). Afrikaners did try in South Africa but ultimately failed.
Spencer’s call for a new global imperialism is both tiresome and unrealistic. Tiresome because, as the saying goes, you can’t go home(or Rome) again. What’s the point of trying to conquer what was already conquered? At least there was a sense of wonder and excitement the first time around when the West discovered new lands and established new markets. All the world has been interlinked as a result, and there isn’t an inch of territory between the Arctic and the Antarctic that hasn’t been combed over or claimed.
The great explorations and conquests led by the Spanish & Portuguese and then followed up by the British, the Dutch, and the French reinvented the world, with even the Old World made anew, and the genie could not be put back into the bottle.
Now, when Mumbai is electronically connected to London to Tokyo to Mexico City to Sao Paolo to Paris to Lisbon to Cape Town, just exactly what would this new global-empire building be? The world is already united under globalism, which exerts such a McDonaldizing and Hollywoodizing influence that nations must now make concerted efforts to survive as distinct peoples and cultures.
Furthermore, the second go-around of empire-building wouldn’t be like the first one where a handful of Western powers were far advanced in technology and weaponry and better organized under the evolution of modern nationalism. Today, India has nuclear weapons. So does Pakistan. China has a lot of missiles. In the 1960s, the US was far ahead of Vietnam in technology but still got mired in an unwinnable war. If global invasions are Spencer’s thing, it’s happening all right, with masses of browns swamping the West. Consider the rapid demographic transformations of the EU, the US, and Canada. Even Australia. Perhaps, Spencer, in his Faustian ubermensch conceit, believes that the Aryans will somehow lord over the darkies in this global empire. The problem is, while it’s true that history is replete with examples of minority-imperial rule, history also teaches us such a rule always comes with an expiration date. Either the rulers racially mix and merge with the subject peoples, like the Aryans in the Indian subcontinent and many whites over the centuries in Latin America, or they’re ousted by the great majority of the natives, as happened to the Europeans(and the Japanese) when their empires fell apart in or after World War II.
We already live in the kind of globalist empire that Spencer pines for, except that Jewish Semites have proven to be stronger in will than ‘Aryan’ whites. According to Spencer, Hungarians shouldn’t preserve Hungary but join some Faustian crusade to lord over the Muslims and Africans because it’s devilish supervillainous cool for whites to play Darth Vader. He’s like a child mistaking a toy world for reality? And there’s the contradiction. If white souls are burning with Faustian desires, why would they subordinate their individuality to another’s will? Take the boomers in the 1960s when the Vietnam War was raging. They wanted authenticity, they wanted self-realization and self-actualization. Anti-authoritarian counter-culture could be construed as Faustian in its own way. So, why should the boomers submit to becoming faceless and interchangeable soldiers wearing the same khaki and following orders without question?
A true Faustian would demand his freedom, map his own destiny, and refuse to take orders. In this sense, if indeed every white soul is ‘Faustian’, it will resist subordinating itself to the will of others who demand blind loyalty. It explains the love/hate thing between Spencer and Nick Fuentes. Fuentes, with a powerful sense of self, refused to become just another flunky of Darth Spencer. For all the talk of Faustianism, the Spencer Show was about Richie Boy surrounding himself with toadies and flunkies with no agency.
Finally, regarding space exploration, something Spencer endlessly yaps about, many countries have been involved, with even Third World countries sending satellites into space. The last thing the people in astronomy and space exploration need is exhortation from someone like Spencer. The difference is they know it’s hard work and requires expertise and precision. It’s not some ‘Faustian’ thing where one dons a Darth Vader helmet and slides into a STAR WARS arcade game and pretends to be traveling at light speed. Science Fiction/Fantasy is easy, real science is hard, but fantasists like Spencer would hardly be expected to know the difference.
No comments:
Post a Comment